Experimental design.
MDD
DISORDER, APPENDIX
Psychiatrists were introduced to a hypothetical 'patient' and instructed on how to interpret information from two CSTs embedded in a patient dashboard (a note summary and clinical decision). Psychiatrists were randomised to believe the source of CSTs was either AI or a psychiatrist. All participants completed four trials in which they read a full clinical note from the patient’s “visit” (First, participants were introduced to a hypothetical patient, Jane Smith, who suffered from moderate MDD and Social Anxiety Disorder. They were informed that they would read full clinical notes describing four of Jane’s outpatient visits and review CSTs corresponding to each visit. Participants were provided instructions on how to interpret the information provided by CSTs, which were embedded within a dashboard (depicted in Appendix Once they started the experimental procedures, participants were allocated with simple randomisation into one of two conditions (i.e. the between-subjects factor). Although information (i.e. clinical notes, dashboard and CSTs) was identical in both conditions, one group was informed that CST information was generated with AI whereas the other group was informed it was written by Jane’s treating psychiatrist. Allocation was carried out automatically, ensuring blinding during data collection. The CSTs differed in quality across the four visits (i.e. the within-subjects factor). On two visits, the information and recommendations provided by the CST was correct, in that CST summaries contained details most relevant for informing Jane’s care, and CST recommendations were consistent with clinical guidelines. On two other visits, the CST summaries contained irrelevant details from the full clinical note and CST recommendations were inconsistent with guidelines. On the first visit, both CSTs were correct. The summary contained relevant information about psychosocial stressors and medication-related improvement in symptoms, and accordingly, the recommendation was that Jane continues her current medication. On the second visit, the summary was correct, but the recommendation was incorrect; despite continued improvement related to Jane’s medication, the CST recommended a decrease in its dose. On the third visit, the recommendation was correct (i.e. prescription of a medication to address side effects), but the summary was incorrect, omitting information about these side effects and significant psychosocial stressors. Finally, on the fourth visit, both the summary and recommendation were incorrect (see Fig. 