ArticleInternational journal of medical education2026
Artificial intelligence in psychiatric care and education: a qualitative study of factors influencing adoption in Singapore.
Article in International journal of medical education, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to understand how AI's perceived role interacts with emerging barriers and facilitators to identify factors influencing its adoption across clinical and educational professions in Singapore. Methods: This study followed a qualitative approach guided by a medical-pedagogical theoretical framework. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between May and July 2025 and followed an interview guide based on the medical-pedagogical framework. Twenty-four people participated, including eight nurses, six psychiatrists, and 10 allied health professionals. All were clinicians and educators. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, with attention to emergent patterns across patient care and educational contexts. Results: Participants recognised significant potential for AI in patient care and healthcare professions education, particularly for information access, retrieval, clinical documentation, AI-augmented training methods such as virtual patients and educational content creation. Barriers included fears of professional skill degradation, role confusion, lack of familiarity with capabilities and the need for personal evidence of benefit. Enablers encompassed integrated, context-specific training, clear governance frameworks, and peer networks facilitating experiential learning and responsible use. Participants emphasised maintaining human connection and reflective practice as essential to psychiatric care and education. Conclusions: Effective AI adoption in psychiatric care and education can be facilitated by clearly delineating tasks, embedding digital literacy into training, communicating robust governance structures, and introducing peer-led communities of practice. Relevant stakeholders should be engaged to align AI deployment with real clinical workflows, optimising both patient care and educational outcomes.
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.