Fairness in AI-Based Mental Health: Clinician Perspectives and Bias Mitigation

There is limited research on fairness in automated decision-making systems in the clinical domain, particularly in the mental health domain. Our study explores clinicians' perceptions of AI fairness through two distinct scenarios: violence risk assessment and depression phenotype recognition using textual clinical notes. We engage with clinicians through semi-structured interviews to understand their fairness perceptions and to identify appropriate quantitative fairness objectives for these scenarios. Then, we compare a set of bias mitigation strategies developed to improve at least one of the four selected fairness objectives. Our findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting fairness measures, as prioritizing less relevant measures can have a detrimental rather than a beneficial effect on model behavior in real-world clinical use.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Published
2024-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v7i1.31732
Citations
6
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.16
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Fairness in AI-Based Mental Health: Clinician Perspectives and Bias Mitigation

Pablo Mosteiro, Heysem Kaya, Gizem Soğancıoğlu, Floortje Scheepers et al.
6 citations
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
3.16
article

Fairness in AI-Based Mental Health: Clinician Perspectives and Bias Mitigation

Pablo Mosteiro, Heysem Kaya, Gizem Soğancıoğlu, Floortje Scheepers, Albert Ali Salah
article en
6 citations

Abstract

There is limited research on fairness in automated decision-making systems in the clinical domain, particularly in the mental health domain. Our study explores clinicians' perceptions of AI fairness through two distinct scenarios: violence risk assessment and depression phenotype recognition using textual clinical notes. We engage with clinicians through semi-structured interviews to understand their fairness perceptions and to identify appropriate quantitative fairness objectives for these scenarios. Then, we compare a set of bias mitigation strategies developed to improve at least one of the four selected fairness objectives. Our findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting fairness measures, as prioritizing less relevant measures can have a detrimental rather than a beneficial effect on model behavior in real-world clinical use.

Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and SocietyVol. 7
Utrecht University (NL), University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
3.16
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.