Back

AI-driven Mental Health Decision Support Enhances Clinician Resilience and Preparedness

Mircea, M.-T.; McFadyen, J.; Harper, R.; Rollwage, M.; Hauser, T. U.

2025-10-31 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2025.10.29.25338983 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesMental health services are facing unprecedented demand, placing significant pressure on clinicians to conduct timely and effective patient assessments. Rising staff turnover and burnout threatens service quality across many countries. This study examined whether providing clinical information, collected via an AI-enabled decision support tool for mental health assessments in the UKs National Health Service (NHS), could improve clinician wellbeing and patient assessment performance. MethodWe surveyed mental health clinicians (N=131) from nine NHS Mental Health Talking Therapies services on how the information provided by an AI-based decision-support tool impacted their experience with conducting clinical assessments. Clinicians reported on assessments where information from the AI tool was available, as well as when it was not (e.g., GP referrals or telephone intakes). Outcomes included clinician wellbeing, task performance, and cognitive load during assessments, with additional analyses assessing the influence of moderating factors, such as clinician experience, workload, and exposure to the tool. ResultsRelative to traditional methods, assessments supported by information provided by the AI tool were associated with significantly higher clinician wellbeing and task performance, and significantly lower cognitive load, irrespective of the clinicians experience. These benefits were magnified by workload. ConclusionThese findings provide evidence that AI-powered pre-assessment tools can enhance clinician experience by improving wellbeing, boosting task performance, and reducing cognitive burden. By addressing systemic drivers of burnout, such tools offer a scalable intervention to support workforce sustainability and service quality in mental health care.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.