“There is a Place for it”—Practitioners’ Perspectives on Situated Ethical Acceptability of AI Technologies for Mental Health Practice: Qualitative Study

@article{alotaibi2026there,
  title = {{“There is a Place for it”—Practitioners’ Perspectives on Situated Ethical Acceptability of AI Technologies for Mental Health Practice: Qualitative Study}},
  author = {Abeer Alotaibi and Corina Sas},
  journal = {JMIR Mental Health},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.2196/91884},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/91884},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}

TY  - JOUR
TI  - “There is a Place for it”—Practitioners’ Perspectives on Situated Ethical Acceptability of AI Technologies for Mental Health Practice: Qualitative Study
AU  - Abeer Alotaibi
AU  - Corina Sas
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/19
JO  - JMIR Mental Health
DO  - 10.2196/91884
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2196/91884
AB  - Background: Design research on AI technologies for mental health has expanded rapidly, yet existing work has largely focused on practitioners’ perspectives within isolated therapeutic stages or specific services. As a result, there is limited understanding of how practitioners view the role of AI across the full therapeutic journey, including assessment, diagnosis, and treatment, or how these perspectives can be translated into actionable and ethically grounded design guidance. This lack of stage-specific guidance introduces several risks: (1) the development of AI tools that practitioners may not trust or adopt, (2) heightened ethical concerns, particularly in diagnosis where bias and erosion of human judgment are most likely, and (3) missed opportunities to leverage AI to support ongoing assessment and treatment adaptation.  Objective: This study aimed to explore mental health practitioners’ perspectives on how AI may support or hinder therapeutic practice across all 3 therapeutic stages, with particular attention to their ethical considerations.  Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with 18 mental health practitioners to explore how AI may support or hinder therapeutic practice across assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. Data were analyzed thematically, and ethical challenges were organized using 4 biomedical principles. This study received approval from the Lancaster University Institutional Ethics Committee (ID 3530).  Results: Findings suggest a stage-specific pattern: practitioners identified valuable roles for AI in supporting clinical assessment and treatment, while expressing strong resistance to autonomous AI diagnosis, which was regarded as the most ethically sensitive stage. Across contexts, AI was seen as supporting and validating, rather than replacing, clinical judgment. Ethical concerns were organized using these principles, with key issues including data validity, inclusivity, privacy, transparency, and explainability. Grounded in these findings, four design directions are proposed: (1) AI-enabled clinical assessment hubs for analyzing multimodal patient data to support transparent decision-making; (2) natural language processing-based tools to enable richer understanding of patients’ lived experiences; (3) new models of trust to support ethically sensitive AI-assisted diagnostic decision-making; and (4) large language model–powered personalized and adaptive mental health support systems that maintain human-AI partnership and preserve practitioners’ central role in care.  Conclusions: This study provides a stage-specific understanding of practitioners’ perspectives on AI use across assessment, diagnosis, and treatment and systematically frames ethical challenges using biomedical principles. The findings translate practitioner insights into actionable design guidance for ethically informed AI-supported mental health practice.
SN  - 2368-7959
ER  -