Cross-sectional survey reveals mental health professionals' views on AI, indicating both optimism and ethical concerns.
Background: Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents a promising avenue to address mental health challenges in lower-middle-income countries like Pakistan, where stigma, limited access, and workforce shortages persist. Despite its potential to enhance service delivery and reduce clinician burden, little is known about mental health professionals’ (MHPs) perspectives on AI integration.Objective: To assess the awareness, perceptions, and concerns of MHPs in Pakistan regarding the use of AI in mental health services. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional survey was conducted among MHPs across Pakistan, following ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of King Edward Medical University, Lahore. Data were collected between a month after IRB approval, using a structured, self-administered online questionnaire covering demographics, AI familiarity, perceived benefits, ethical concerns, and readiness to adopt AI. A total of 125 responses were gathered through convenience and snowball sampling. Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS. Results: The majority of respondents were female (78%), aged 18–30 years (58%), and primarily from Punjab. Doctors comprised 51% of the sample. While 73.6% were familiar with AI, only 5.6% had any formal training related to AI. Chatbots were the most recognized tool (67%). Perceived benefits included workload reduction (62.4%) and improved access (60.8%), though concerns about ethics (64%) and diagnostic accuracy (63.2%) were prevalent. Most (53.6%) supported AI use only with human oversight. High interest was observed in AI use for personal well-being (87%) and workplace tasks (69%). Conclusion: MHPs in Pakistan express cautious optimism toward AI in mental health, emphasizing the need for training, ethical safeguards, and regulatory support.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aamer et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: