AI for Youth Mental Health Must Be Governed as Public Health Infrastructure
Responsible AI for youth mental health requires public health integration, enforceable ethical standards, and privacy architectures
A background note can be accessed here: ADB on Safeguarding Youth Mental Health
Mehak Chopra: Regional facilitator (Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadar Nagar Haveli/Daman), Pallium India
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare | Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
What governance frameworks and institutional incentives are necessary to ensure that AI-based mental health tools are integrated with public health systems without fragmenting care delivery or creating parallel, unregulated services?
Safe integration of AI-based mental health tools into public health systems requires formal clinical anchoring and system-level governance. AI applications should be explicitly positioned as decision-support instruments for screening, triage, and early risk identification, not as substitutes for psychologists or psychiatrists. Nationally approved clinical screening tools must be embedded within AI systems, with continuous validation against real-world outcomes, referral quality, and follow-through.
Institutional mechanisms such as certification and accreditation are essential. Health authorities should approve AI platforms only if they meet minimum standards for clinical accuracy, data protection, referral protocols, and professional oversight. Any counselling-style interaction generated by AI must be designed, tested, and periodically reviewed by licensed mental health professionals to minimise the risks of misinformation, stigma reinforcement, or inappropriate clinical framing.
When governed appropriately, AI can help address shortages in mental health professionals by providing multilingual, culturally adapted first-contact support. Integration across schools, colleges, workplaces, and primary health centres can enable early identification and structured referrals, easing pressure on specialists while strengthening continuity of care within public health systems rather than creating parallel, unregulated services.
AI applications can inadvertently amplify harmful content or biases, with disproportionate impacts on women and girls. How should policy balance ethical safeguards with innovation incentives?
Policy responses must embed enforceable ethical safeguards without constraining responsible innovation. Mandatory bias testing, contextual safety checks, and content moderation standards should form part of regulatory approval for youth-facing applications, moving beyond voluntary self-regulation.
Cultural specificity is central. Models trained primarily on Western or generic datasets may misinterpret expressions of distress in Indian linguistic and social contexts. Ongoing region-specific bias audits and culturally grounded language models are necessary to ensure relevance and safety. At the same time, innovation incentives β such as regulatory sandboxes, startup grants, and support through initiatives like the IndiaAI Mission β can coexist with safeguards if transparency is clearly required.
To protect early-stage innovators, policy should avoid excessive compliance or copyright barriers. Public investment in shared, anonymized datasets and ethical testing infrastructure can raise baseline quality across the ecosystem. Responsible governance can enable innovation while safeguarding dignity, equity, and user trust.
Mental health interactions involve highly sensitive personal data, raising acute privacy and security concerns. What regulatory architectures and enforcement mechanisms are needed to protect youth data in AI mental health tools and how should these be aligned with broader digital health data strategies without compromising user trust?
Regulatory architectures must mandate privacy-by-design principles, including data minimization, strong encryption, informed consent, and secure local storage. Youth data requires enhanced protections, such as restricted sharing, explicit limits on secondary use, and clear accountability for data handlers.
A survivor-centred design approach strengthens trust by prioritising autonomy, safety, and dignity at every stage of deployment. This includes safeguards to identify self-harm risk, prevent exposure to harmful content, and ensure timely escalation to trained professionals when thresholds are crossed. Enforcement mechanisms should combine regulatory oversight with auditability and clear liability frameworks.
Alignment with broader digital health data strategies is essential to avoid fragmentation while enabling interoperability where appropriate. Collaboration with clinical institutions, licensed professionals, and survivor advocates can improve ethical standards, training datasets, and safety protocols. When privacy, safety, and accountability are embedded system-wide, AI can support mental health delivery without compromising data sovereignty, user dignity, or public confidence.
Author:
Views are personal.