Currently submitted to: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: May 17, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: May 18, 2026 - Jul 13, 2026
(currently open for review)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
General-purpose artificial intelligence use in routine mental health practice among Australian clinicians
ABSTRACT
Background:
General-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly accessible to mental health professionals, yet little is known about how these off-the-shelf systems are being integrated into routine therapeutic practice.
Objective:
This study aimed to examine how Australian mental health professionals are using general-purpose AI tools in routine practice, including patterns of use, perceived usefulness, barriers, workplace governance, and factors associated with frequent AI use.
Methods:
We conducted a sequential mixed methods study with Australian mental health professionals. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 clinicians to explore current uses, perceived benefits, limitations, and governance issues. Findings from the qualitative phase informed a national survey of 278 respondents. Survey analyses examined daily AI use across client-facing and administrative or clinician-support tasks, perceived performance, barriers to use, workplace permissions, and demographic and professional factors associated with daily use.
Results:
Interview participants described AI use across client-facing, administrative, documentation, translation, planning, research, and emotional-support tasks. Survey findings showed that 121 of 278 respondents (43.5%) reported daily administrative or clinician-support AI use, and 92 of 278 respondents (33.1%) reported daily client-facing AI use. Common barriers included privacy and security concerns, accuracy concerns, insufficient training or support, limited confidence judging outputs, and preference for human judgement. Speaking a language other than English at home was associated with greater odds of daily administrative or clinician-support AI use and daily client-facing AI use. Age, years practised, gender, education, and profession were not independently associated with either outcome.
Conclusions:
General-purpose AI tools appear to be entering routine mental health practice across a broad range of tasks, particularly as clinician-supervised workflow supports. However, uptake is occurring alongside unresolved concerns about privacy, accuracy, training, human oversight, and workplace governance. Clearer guidance, practical training, and task-specific evaluation are needed to support safe and appropriate AI integration in mental health care. Clinical Trial: N/A
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.