Resumen
Background: AI-driven mental health solutions offer transformative potential for improving mental healthcare outcomes, but identifying the most effective approaches remains a challenge. This study addresses this gap by evaluating and prioritizing AI-driven mental health alternatives based on key criteria, including feasibility of implementation, cost-effectiveness, scalability, ethical compliance, user satisfaction, and impact on clinical outcomes. Methods: A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) model, consisting of fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy ARAS, was employed to rank the alternatives, while a hybridization of the two methods was used to address discrepancies between the methods, each emphasizing distinct evaluative aspect. Results: Fuzzy TOPSIS, focusing on closeness to the ideal solution, ranked personalization of care (A5) as the top alternative with a closeness coefficient of 0.50, followed by user engagement (A2) at 0.45. Fuzzy ARAS, which evaluates cumulative performance, also ranked A5 the highest, with an overall performance rating of Si = 0.90 and utility degree Qi = 0.92. Combining both methods provided a balanced assessment, with A5 retaining its top position due to high scores in user satisfaction and clinical outcomes. Conclusions: This result underscores the importance of personalization and engagement in optimizing AI-driven mental health solutions, suggesting that tailored, user-focused approaches are pivotal for maximizing treatment success and user adherence.