ArticleDigital health
Psychiatrists' experiences and opinions of generative AI: An exploratory online mixed methods survey in Germany.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Generative artificial intelligence is increasingly discussed as a tool to support psychiatric practice, particularly by improving clinical workflows. Despite growing interest, little is known about how psychiatrists use genAI and how they assess its usefulness, especially within the German healthcare system. Objective: This study examines the experiences and attitudes of psychiatrists in a Germany-wide convenience sample, with initial recruitment focused on Berlin and Brandenburg. Methods: An online mixed methods survey was conducted between September 19, 2024 and March 14, 2025. Psychiatrists working in public psychiatric hospitals, outpatient practices, and members of the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics and Neurology were invited. Of 11,754 contacted psychiatrists, 126 completed the survey, resulting in a response rate of 1.07 percent. The survey assessed sociodemographic characteristics, prior genAI experience, perceived effects on clinical work, and use cases such as documentation, diagnostics, and communication. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and qualitative responses using summarizing content analysis. Results: Slightly more than half of respondents, 52.0 percent, reported using genAI chatbots, most commonly ChatGPT. GenAI was primarily used for administrative tasks, especially writing medical letters and accessing medication information. Many participants reported potential benefits in reducing bureaucratic workload and improving documentation efficiency. At the same time, skepticism regarding clinical usefulness was common. Respondents highlighted clear limitations in diagnostic and therapeutic decision making and emphasized the need for targeted training. Language support was identified as a key advantage, particularly for non native German speakers. The limited sample size restricts generalizability. Conclusions: Psychiatrists expressed cautious optimism toward genAI, mainly for administrative support, while raising concerns about diagnostic use and insufficient training. These findings underline the need for evidence based integration of genAI in psychiatry, particularly in light of the EU AI Act.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.