Literature Collection

BACKGROUND: As artificial intelligence (AI) tools are integrated more widely in psychiatric medicine, it is important to consider the impact these tools will have on clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize physician perspectives on the potential impact AI tools will have in psychiatric medicine. METHODS: We interviewed 42 physicians (21 psychiatrists and 21 family medicine practitioners). These interviews used detailed clinical case scenarios involving the use of AI technologies in the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric conditions. Interviews were transcribed and subsequently analyzed using qualitative analysis methods. RESULTS: Physicians highlighted multiple potential benefits of AI tools, including potential support for optimizing pharmaceutical efficacy, reducing administrative burden, aiding shared decision-making, and increasing access to health services, and were optimistic about the long-term impact of these technologies. This optimism was tempered by concerns about potential near-term risks to both patients and themselves including misguiding clinical judgment, increasing clinical burden, introducing patient harms, and creating legal liability. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the importance of considering specialist perspectives when deploying AI tools in psychiatric medicine.

Physician workload is known to impact provider well-being and individual patient encounters, but less is understood about how provider availability affects broader community health outcomes. Primary care physicians (PCPs) often serve as de facto mental health providers, particularly in underserved communities. This study evaluated whether PCP and mental health provider workload, measured by provider-to-resident ratios, predict population-level physical and mental health outcomes. County-level data from the 2024 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation County Health Rankings dataset (N = 3142 counties) were analyzed using two path analysis models; such models are used to estimate both direct and indirect relationships among multiple predictors and outcomes simultaneously. Predictor variables included provider ratios, percent uninsured (mediator), and self-reported physically and mentally unhealthy days (outcomes). Higher PCP workload was significantly associated with greater numbers of poor physical and mental health days. Mental health provider ratios were not directly associated with either outcome. Indirect effects through the percent uninsured were also significant, particularly for physical health outcomes. These findings suggest that PCPs play a disproportionate role in shaping both mental and physical health at the community level. The analysis supports the conclusion that addressing provider shortages and improving insurance coverage can enhance health outcomes, particularly when efforts are integrated into collaborative care models that distribute workload across providers and align treatment approaches with the diverse psychosocial and medical needs of the populations they serve.

Background: Opioid treatment programs (OTPs) permit patients to ingest daily methadone doses unsupervised and away from the clinic, a strategy that enhances treatment access and convenience but has the potential for mismanagement.Objective: This retrospective review, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic (5/2020-1/2022), evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of a commercially available electronic pillbox to safely administer methadone take-home tablets in a large community-based OTP (census >500 people).Methods: Study participants (n = 24; 54% male, 46% female; M age = 63 years) had recently received more take-homes per visit to support national social distancing directives, and were instructed that they could maintain these privileges by agreeing to use the pillbox.Results: Results demonstrate good demand feasibility as most participants (71%) agreed to use the pillbox. Good implementation feasibility was observed through safe and reliable delivery of most take-home tablets, with a staff support line to resolve technical issues. Acceptability was modest as six participants (25%) requested to return the pillbox despite losing some take-home privileges.Conclusion: Results support continued use and study of the electronic pillbox to safely deliver and increase access to methadone take-home doses.