Artificial Intelligence has quickly grown in healthcare by helping with diagnosis, treatment, predictions, and managing tasks. In mental health, AI tools like online cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT), chatbots, and prediction models are used more often. This is because there are not enough clinicians and many patients need care.
A 2025 survey by the American Medical Association shows that 66% of U.S. doctors now use AI tools, up from 38% in 2023. Also, 68% believe AI helps improve patient care. This shows AI can make care easier to get and improve decisions. But using AI in mental health brings important ethical and practical questions that leaders must handle to keep care safe and effective.
One key ethical rule is that AI decisions must be clear. Patients and doctors need to know how AI comes to its results. This “right to explanation” is important in mental health because AI might affect treatment or diagnosis. Ethical use means AI should give understandable results, and doctors should check AI suggestions before making decisions.
The European Artificial Intelligence Act highlights this rule for AI systems that deal with high risks, including medical uses. Though this law is for Europe, similar rules may come in the U.S. Agencies like the FDA are looking at policies for AI mental health tools to make sure things are clear and reduce risks like bias or mistakes.
AI systems can only be as fair as the data they learn from. In mental health, AI might copy or make worse existing biases based on race, income, or age because the data used might not cover all groups well. This can cause unfair treatment or wrong predictions. To fix this, developers must carefully manage data, check results regularly, and use diverse data sets.
Digital mental health apps gather private patient information, like therapy notes, mood tracking, and behavior monitoring. Keeping this data safe and private is very important to build trust. Rules like HIPAA in the U.S. and systems like the European Health Data Space help protect patient data while still allowing AI growth.
Using AI ethically also means knowing who is responsible if AI makes mistakes. The European Union has a rule that makes AI developers responsible if their software causes harm. While this rule is not in the U.S., leaders here must still think about who answers for decisions or bad outcomes caused by AI.
Strong bonds between patients and therapists help mental health care. AI tools should not damage these relationships. For example, therapist-guided iCBT has fewer patients quitting than self-help versions. So, mixing AI with human support helps patients stay involved and get better care.
Many AI tools, like natural language processing (NLP) and prediction models, work by themselves. Connecting these tools to electronic health record (EHR) systems and daily work is hard. Technical problems, cost to test AI, and resistance from doctors slow progress.
Leaders must plan well to make AI fit with care routines without causing trouble. Training for doctors and IT staff is important to get the most from AI tools in mental health services.
AI needs lots of good data to work well. Mental health data is often different, messy, or small compared to other health areas. Adding more data from many groups, clinical notes, images, and real-time info can improve AI accuracy.
Tools like the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) help check if patients can use digital health tools well, so care can be adjusted for them. Collecting data carefully while protecting privacy takes ongoing effort.
Keeping patients interested in digital mental health programs with AI is hard. Studies show that small, flexible actions through AI can help. But combining many small steps into a full plan needs more work.
AI that back up human therapists can help patients stick with treatment by giving personal checks and reminders. This team approach works better.
Following changing rules is difficult. The FDA reviews AI mental health devices and new AI tools, stressing safety, risk control, and human oversight. This means constant records, testing, and clear AI use.
Medical administrators should keep up with rule updates and work with providers to make sure AI meets all legal and ethical standards.
Even though AI can save money by making work faster, starting it costs a lot. Money is needed for software, equipment, training, and checks. Practices should compare benefits to start-up costs and think about long-term budget plans.
AI can also change how staff work by automating schedules and administrative jobs, which may save money if done carefully.
One clear benefit of using AI in digital mental health is automating office and clinical tasks. This includes scheduling appointments, answering calls, entering data, and writing clinical notes.
For example, companies like Simbo AI use AI for phone systems to handle appointment requests, patient questions, and routine talks. This cuts down manual calls, shortens wait times, and lets staff focus on harder jobs.
Automation helps by:
By automating these tasks, mental health clinics can cut costs and give doctors more time for patients. But success needs AI to fit the practice’s workflow and staff training to use new tools well.
Mental health providers in the U.S. have special challenges and rules when they use AI:
Medical practice leaders and IT managers in the U.S. should keep these tasks in mind when using AI in mental health:
Using AI in mental health care can improve decisions, efficiency, and patient services. But U.S. medical leaders must handle ethical questions, technical problems, and regulations carefully. With good leadership and planning, healthcare groups can use AI safely and fairly while keeping patient trust and good care.
JMIR is a leading, peer-reviewed open access journal focusing on digital medicine and health care technologies. It ranks highly in Medical Informatics and Health Care Sciences, making it a significant source for research on emerging digital health innovations, including public mental health interventions.
JMIR provides open access to research that includes applied science on digital health tools, which allied health professionals can use for patient education, prevention, and clinical care, thus enhancing access to current evidence-based mental health interventions.
The journal covers Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapies (iCBTs), including therapist-assisted and self-guided formats, highlighting their cost-effectiveness and use in treating various mental health disorders with attention to engagement and adherence.
Therapist-assisted iCBTs have lower dropout rates compared to self-guided ones, indicating that therapist involvement supports engagement and adherence, which is crucial for effective public mental health intervention delivery.
Long-term engagement remains challenging, with research suggesting microinterventions as a way to provide flexible, short, and meaningful behavior changes. However, integrating multiple microinterventions into coherent narratives over time needs further exploration.
Digital health literacy is essential for patients and providers to effectively utilize online resources. Tools like the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) help assess these skills to tailor interventions and ensure access and understanding.
Biofeedback systems show promise in improving psychological well-being and mental health among workers, although current evidence often comes from controlled settings, limiting generalizability for workplace public mental health initiatives.
AI integration offers potential improvements in decision-making and patient care but raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and the right to explanation, affecting ethical delivery of digital mental health services.
Barriers include maintaining patient engagement, ensuring adequate therapist involvement, digital literacy limitations, and navigating complex legal and ethical frameworks around new technologies like AI.
JMIR encourages open science, patient participation as peer reviewers, and publication of protocols before data collection, supporting collaborative and transparent research that can inform more accessible mental health interventions for allied health professionals.