Will AI replace Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 80 official task statements scored for Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists (United Kingdom, SOC 2224), 17% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 32 out of 100 (range 26–38, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

What should someone working in “Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 17% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 71% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 80 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK dataswitch to US

Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists

assessing if a client will benefit from cognitive behavioural therapy, discussing therapies and treatments with other professionals and working with multidisciplinary teams to integrate care plans. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: researching new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 17%
changing shape: 12%
staying human: 71%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 32 out of 100 (26–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 80 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, encouraging the client to talk about and explore their feelings, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.

Your week, as this page understands it

Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists use a variety of therapies in one-on-one or group settings to help people with mental health issues, stress, emotional and relationship problems. The job title says “psychotherapists” or “cognitive behaviour therapists”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: encouraging the client to talk about and explore their feelings. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists is not one task. It is 80 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is encouraging the client to talk about and explore their feelings, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 17%
changing shape: 12%
staying human: 71%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
7 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

13 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Analysing data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific treatments or therapy approaches
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Analyse data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific treatments or therapy approaches.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing outcome data across treatments is statistical work software does well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Documenting patient notes detailing treatment and progress
This is reading one thing and writing another: patient notes detailing treatment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Document patient notes detailing treatment and progress.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Turning a session into a clear, structured note is close to routine for current tools, with the therapist signing it off.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing training programmes for staff and students
This is reading one thing and writing another: programmes in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Develop training programmes for staff and students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Designing training programmes is well-documented course-writing work software handles strongly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing records to understand medical and family histories
This is reading one thing and writing another: records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Review records to understand medical and family histories.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling the key points out of medical and family records is close to routine for current tools, with the therapist checking it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

9 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Identifying psychological, emotional or behavioural issues using information from interviews, tests, records or reference materials
The software now makes the first pass at psychological, emotional or behavioural issues, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 90 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Identify psychological, emotional, or behavioural issues using information from interviews, tests, records, or reference materials.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Drawing themes out of interview notes, tests and records is document work software does well, with the clinician responsible.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing client reports on psychological assessments
The software now makes the first pass at client reports, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Write client reports on psychological assessments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Assessment reports follow a set structure software drafts well, though the qualified clinician must stand behind them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Sharing occupational information with other professionals
The software now makes the first pass at occupational information, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Share occupational information with other professionals, agencies, or universities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Sharing professional information with other services is correspondence software drafts well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

58 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Developing and implementing treatment plans
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Develop and implement treatment plans.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A plan can be drafted quickly, but delivering therapy depends on the live relationship with the client.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Encouraging the client to talk about and explore their feelings
The value here is that a specific person handles the client and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 95 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Encourage the client to talk about and explore their feelings, attitudes and behaviours.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Clients explore difficult feelings because a therapist is present, listening and responding as they speak.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Advising clients on how they could be helped by counselling
The value here is that a specific person handles clients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 90 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Advise clients on how they could be helped by counselling.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: What counselling can offer is well documented, though people decide after talking it through with someone.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 70 tasks

Researching new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: new topic areas in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Research new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (76–90 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping up with published research is reading and summarising, which software does quickly and well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Reviewing current research and theories to inform professional practice
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: current research in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2224/02
Source: “Review current research and theories to inform professional practice.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing published research and theory is reading and summarising, which AI does quickly and thoroughly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Staying informed about current research and development trends
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: informed in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 65 · 2224/02
Source: “Stay informed about current research and development trends.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping up with published research and practice trends is one of the strongest uses of current tools.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Maintaining accurate records
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: accurate records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2224/01
Source: “Maintain accurate records.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping records accurate is routine screen work software does reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining client-related paperwork
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: client-related paperwork in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Maintain client-related paperwork.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping client files complete and current is structured administrative work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing papers describing the results of psychological research
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: papers describing the results of psychological research in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2224/01
Source: “Write papers describing the results of psychological research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (68–82 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Writing up research findings follows a standard structure software handles well, though the results are the researcher’s own.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Maintaining records of clients
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: records of clients in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2224/02
Source: “Maintain records of clients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Keeping client records in order is structured, well-documented work that software already does reliably.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Reviewing records to assess treatment plans and outcomes
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2224/02
Source: “Review records to assess treatment plans and outcomes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading back through case records to see what worked is well-structured analysis that current tools handle well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing reports, letters and reviews of assessment and treatment
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports, letters and reviews of assessment and treatment in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2224/02
Source: “Write reports, letters, and reviews of assessment and treatment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Assessment letters and treatment reviews are structured documents that current tools draft well, with the therapist checking them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Consulting reference material to identify symptoms and make diagnoses
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at reference material, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2224/01
Source: “Consult reference material to identify symptoms and make diagnoses.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Looking up symptoms against reference material is fast and reliable for software, but the diagnosis rests with the clinician.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assessing therapy sessions to evaluate patient outcomes
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at therapy sessions, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2224/02
Source: “Assess therapy sessions to evaluate patient outcomes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Outcome measures are already collected routinely, so analysing whether therapy is working suits current tools well.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing career information to individuals for educational or vocational planning
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at career information, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2224/02
Source: “Provide career information to individuals for educational or vocational planning.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Careers information is well documented, though people often want to talk it through.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Adhering to data protection and confidentiality regulations
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at data protection, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2224/01
Source: “Adhere to data protection and confidentiality regulations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Data protection rules are clearly written and easily checked, but following them day to day is a person’s responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Planning and conducting psychological research
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at psychological research, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Plan and conduct psychological research.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Study design and analysis can be drafted and calculated, but running research with people takes a researcher.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Engaging with clients to understand their needs and requirements
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at clients, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2224/02
Source: “Engage with clients to understand their needs and requirements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 40 out of 100 (33–47 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Clients explain what they actually need in conversation with someone they trust.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Referring patients to other healthcare practitioners
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Refer patients to other healthcare practitioners as necessary.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Spotting who else should be involved is fairly routine, but the referral goes out in the clinician's own name.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Discussing therapies and treatments with other professionals
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles therapies and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Discuss therapies and treatments with other professionals, agencies, or universities.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Professional discussions about treatment can be prepared in writing, but the exchange itself is between colleagues.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Coordinating activities of medical specialists and therapists
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles activities of medical specialists and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2224/01
Source: “Coordinate activities of medical specialists and therapists.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 35 out of 100 (28–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Scheduling and chasing can be automated, but getting busy clinicians to agree a plan still takes real conversations.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Developing client treatment plans based on research
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for client treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Develop client treatment plans based on research, clinical experience, and client histories.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Plans can be drafted from research and case history, but the approach chosen is an experienced clinician's professional call.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Distinguishing between physiologically- and psychologically-based disorders
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for physiologically-, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Distinguish between physiologically- and psychologically-based disorders, and diagnose appropriately.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Psychotherapy is not a licensed profession in the UK, so this judgement rests on professional standards rather than a legal gate.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Modifying treatment plans to comply with changes in clients' status
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment plans, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Modify treatment plans to comply with changes in clients' status.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Redrafting a plan around a change in someone's circumstances is largely writing, though the decision stays with the therapist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Advising healthcare professionals on patient care strategies
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for healthcare professionals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2224/01
Source: “Advise healthcare professionals on patient care strategies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advice can be drafted from published guidance, but colleagues act on it because an experienced clinician stands behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Working with multidisciplinary teams to integrate care plans for patients
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for multidisciplinary teams, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2224/02
Source: “Work with multidisciplinary teams to integrate care plans for patients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Care plans can be pulled together from records, but agreeing them across a team is a professional discussion.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Teaching social workers, nurses and teachers about functioning within groups
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles social workers, nurses and teachers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2224/02
Source: “Teach social workers, nurses, and teachers about functioning within groups.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Teaching professionals about group behaviour needs a tutor in the room, though the material is well documented.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Carrying out training sessions for professionals on group dynamics
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles training sessions and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 65 · 2224/02
Source: “Carry out training sessions for professionals on group dynamics.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Running training sessions requires a trainer with the group, even though the content is easy to prepare.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Building and maintaining networks within the healthcare professional community to ensure work continuity and patient retention
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles networks within the healthcare professional community and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2224/02
Source: “Build and maintain networks within the healthcare professional community to ensure work continuity and patient retention.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Professional networks are built person to person over time, though introductions and follow-ups can be drafted.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Administering psychological tests to individuals
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychological tests, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Administer psychological tests to individuals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 27 out of 100 (20–34 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Many tests are already delivered and scored digitally, though a qualified professional must oversee their use.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Assessing if a client will benefit from cognitive behavioural therapy
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for if a client will benefit, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2224/01
Source: “Assess if a client will benefit from cognitive behavioural therapy.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Screening tools can suggest whether therapy suits someone, but a qualified therapist makes that call with the person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning accredited psychological service programmes in collaboration with professional staff
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for accredited psychological service programmes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Plan accredited psychological service programmes in collaboration with professional staff.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Service planning needs local knowledge and agreement between professionals, though drafts can be written for you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing consulting services to other doctors to support mental health treatment plans
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for services, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Provide consulting services to other doctors to support mental health treatment plans.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Background material can be prepared, but doctors act on advice from an experienced clinician they can question directly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Developing specialist care programmes for children and adolescents
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for specialist care programmes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2224/02
Source: “Develop specialist care programmes for children and adolescents.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Programmes can be drafted from published approaches, but what a particular young person needs is judged by an experienced clinician.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collecting information about clients through interviews
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles information and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 90 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Collect information about clients through interviews, observation, or tests.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Much of an intake is structured questions, but clients disclose properly to a therapist who has put them at ease.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Planning actions with clients to achieve social
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles actions and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Plan actions with clients to achieve social, educational, or vocational development.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Action plans can be drafted, but they only work when agreed with the person who has to follow them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Achieving specified performance targets
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles specified performance targets and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2224/02
Source: “Achieve specified performance targets.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 23 out of 100 (11–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Hitting service targets depends on the caseload and setting in front of the therapist rather than on anything documented.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Performing risk assessments and managing risks from a child psychotherapy perspective
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for risk assessments, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2224/02
Source: “Perform risk assessments and manage risks from a child psychotherapy perspective.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 22 out of 100 (15–29 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Risk templates can be drafted, but a named professional must make and own safeguarding judgements about a child.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Advising families to understand problems and developing realistic action plans
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for families, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Advise families to understand problems and develop realistic action plans.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advising a family works through the relationship in the room; written plans are only part of it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising other therapists in developing treatment plans
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for other therapists, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2224/02
Source: “Supervise other therapists in developing treatment plans.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Treatment plans can be reviewed on paper, but supervision works through an experienced clinician’s relationship with the therapist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Interviewing individuals or family members to compile information on social and educational history
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: individuals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Interview individuals or family members to compile information on social and educational history.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can structure questions and write up answers, but families open up to a person sitting with them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Offering educational programmes to community members to promote health and wellbeing
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: educational programmes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2224/01
Source: “Offer educational programmes to community members to promote health and wellbeing.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Community sessions need someone in the room, though the materials behind them can be drafted.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing prevention talks to the general public
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: prevention talks, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2224/01
Source: “Provide prevention talks to the general public.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Public talks need a speaker in front of an audience, even if the content is easy to prepare.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing written evaluations of individuals' psychological competence for court hearings
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for written evaluations of individuals' psychological competence, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 60 · 2224/01
Source: “Prepare written evaluations of individuals' psychological competence for court hearings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (16–24 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Courts accept these opinions because an identified expert is personally answerable to the court for them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting outreach programmes
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: outreach programmes, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 60 · 2224/01
Source: “Conduct outreach programmes for schools, agencies, and businesses.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Outreach means going to schools and workplaces and building relationships there.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Meeting individuals and families to review needs and make support plans
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles individuals and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2224/02
Source: “Meet individuals and families to review needs and make support plans.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Support plans are agreed in the room with families, and much of what matters to them is never written down.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Assessing the risk patients pose to themselves
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the risk patients pose, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2224/01
Source: “Assess the risk patients pose to themselves and others.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (13–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Judging whether someone is a danger to themselves or others rests on an experienced clinician who is answerable for the call.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Discussing therapy plans with patients
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles therapy plans and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2224/01
Source: “Discuss therapy plans with patients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (12–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Clients commit to a therapy plan through conversation with the therapist who will be delivering it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Communicating with patients' family members regarding health concerns
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles patients' family members regarding health concerns and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2224/01
Source: “Communicate with patients' family members regarding health concerns.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (12–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Families raise worries with someone they know and trust, and those conversations turn on how they are handled live.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supporting clients in finding ways to manage their issues and make positive changes
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2224/02
Source: “Support clients in finding ways to manage their issues and make positive changes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (11–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Helping someone find their own way through depends on the relationship they have with their therapist.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Observing children and young people's interactions during play to inform future planning
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: children, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 65 · 2224/02
Source: “Observe children and young people's interactions during play to inform future planning.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 14 out of 100 (7–21 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch; work that happens in the physical world.
The rating behind it: Planning can be drafted from notes, but the watching itself means being present while children play.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Conducting patient-centred interviews to identify desired areas of change
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for patient-centred interviews, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2224/01
Source: “Conduct patient-centred interviews to identify desired areas of change.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A first interview about what someone wants to change depends on the trust built in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Directing staff and interns in patient assessment
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for staff, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2224/01
Source: “Direct staff and interns in patient assessment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Directing staff and trainees through assessments depends on live supervision and their trust in you.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Overseeing other trained psychotherapists
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for other trained psychotherapists, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2224/02
Source: “Oversee other trained psychotherapists.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (6–20 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Overseeing other therapists depends on professional judgement and their confidence in the person supervising.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Collaborating with psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses and social workers in a mental health team
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses and social workers and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2224/02
Source: “Collaborate with psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, and social workers in a mental health team.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Team working across mental health services runs on live discussion and on relationships built over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing guidance to mental health tribunals
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for guidance, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2224/01
Source: “Provide guidance to mental health tribunals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advice to a tribunal has to come from an accountable clinician who can be questioned on it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Monitoring individuals in various contexts to detect mental deficiency
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: individuals, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2224/01
Source: “Monitor individuals in various contexts to detect mental deficiency, abnormal behaviour, or maladjustment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Noticing that something is wrong with someone requires watching them in real settings over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Advising groups to deal with crisis situations and defining goals
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for groups, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Advise groups to deal with crisis situations and define goals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Helping a group through a crisis depends on being present and trusted at the time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising counsellors, social service staff, assistants and postgraduate students
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for counsellors, social service staff, assistants and postgraduate students, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 65 · 2224/01
Source: “Supervise counsellors, social service staff, assistants, and postgraduate students.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervision means an experienced practitioner taking responsibility for someone else's casework through regular live discussion.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Tailoring approaches to individual children using age-appropriate techniques
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for approaches, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2224/02
Source: “Tailor approaches to individual children using age-appropriate techniques.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Adapting to a particular child as you go depends on reading them in the moment.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Helping clients develop insight into themselves or their relationships
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles clients develop insight and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Help clients develop insight into themselves or their relationships.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: In therapy the relationship is the treatment, so insight grows through live work with a person the client trusts.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Conducting specialist psychotherapeutic assessments for referred children
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for specialist psychotherapeutic assessments, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2224/02
Source: “Conduct specialist psychotherapeutic assessments for referred children, young people, and their guardians to determine suitable treatment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (4–12 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Specialist assessment of a referred child needs an accountable clinician meeting the child and family.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Applying treatment methods like psychotherapy and hypnosis for patient care
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for treatment methods like psychotherapy, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2224/01, 2224/02
Source: “Apply treatment methods like psychotherapy and hypnosis for patient care.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: The therapy itself is the relationship between therapist and patient.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting group therapy sessions to address mental health issues
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for group therapy sessions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2224/02
Source: “Conduct group therapy sessions to address mental health issues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 7 out of 100 (3–11 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Group therapy works through what happens between the people in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Facilitating discussions about emotions with adolescent clients
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for discussions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2224/02
Source: “Facilitate discussions about emotions with adolescent clients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 6 out of 100 (2–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting a teenager to talk about feelings depends entirely on trusting the person opposite.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Providing psychoanalytic, psychotherapeutic treatment to children and adolescents individually or in groups
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for psychoanalytic, psychotherapeutic treatment, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2224/02
Source: “Provide psychoanalytic, psychotherapeutic treatment to children and adolescents individually or in groups.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Therapy with children rests on a trusted adult being with them, under strict professional accountability.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Delivering both short-term and long-term interventions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for both short-term, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2224/02
Source: “Deliver both short-term and long-term interventions for children, young people, and their parents.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 5 out of 100 (1–9 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Delivering therapy to children and parents is built on a trusted, accountable relationship over time.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Establishing and maintaining trust with patients to support their treatment
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles trust and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 90 · 2224/01
Source: “Establish and maintain trust with patients to support their treatment.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Trust between therapist and client is the treatment itself, not a step on the way to it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Engaging with vulnerable people, develop a relationship built on trust
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles vulnerable people, develop a relationship built and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2224/02
Source: “Engage with vulnerable people in order to develop a relationship built on trust.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Building trust with a vulnerable person is the whole of the work being described here.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Participating in professional supervision sessions to improve the quality of their practice
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for professional supervision sessions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2224/02
Source: “Participate in professional supervision sessions to improve the quality of their practice.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervision is about a named practitioner examining their own work with someone more experienced.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Receiving regular clinical and professional supervision from a more senior psychologist
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for regular clinical, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2224/02
Source: “Receive regular clinical and professional supervision from a more senior psychologist.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Supervision holds a named practitioner accountable for their own casework, so there is nothing here to hand over.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Seeking support and advice from a clinical supervisor on arising issues
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for support, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2224/02
Source: “Seek support and advice from a clinical supervisor on arising issues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–7 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Taking a difficult case to a supervisor is the practitioner's own professional obligation and depends on that working relationship.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Using play or drawing techniques with younger children
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: play, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 75 · 2224/02
Source: “Use play or drawing techniques with younger children.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 0 out of 100 (0–4 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Play and drawing work happens physically alongside a young child.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 4/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · how much data exists 1/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £48,000a year, before tax, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.ashe-t14, 2025 · ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
How we know this
Source: ashe-t14
Reference period: ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)
Rounding: Shown to the nearest £100. The exact published figure is in the downloadable dataset. We do not render pounds the survey cannot support.
People doing this job: 53,300in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: new topic areas in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: researching new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge and analysing data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific treatments or therapy approaches. What it cannot do is be trusted in person, which is what the client runs on: someone specific doing it and standing behind it. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Start with what does not change: encouraging the client to talk about and explore their feelings is the middle of this job, and the evidence on this page says it stays with a person.

So, given all that: 17% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 12% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 71% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 80 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

So the thing worth your attention is not the job going away. It is the layer around it. Researching new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge is the part turning into software, and being the person who understands that layer is worth money.

This week: one thing

Ask the one question. Find whoever is bringing new software into your workplace (the manager, the office, whoever runs the system) and ask them what it is meant to do to new topic areas, and what it is not meant to touch. Ten minutes, this week, before anyone decides it for you.

What you end up holding: a straight answer about what is actually being rolled out, and when
How long it takes: ten minutes

If there’s nobody obvious to ask, or you’d rather not ask your manager: Put the same question to your union rep, your shift lead or the person who has been there longest, in person, over a break. Same ten minutes, same answer, and you will usually get a straighter one. Write down what they say. The note is the artifact, and it tells you whether the client is in scope or not. Nothing to log into, no licence needed.

Over the next 90 days

Get inside the tool rollout rather than waiting for it. Over the next ninety days, ask to be in the group that tests, checks or signs off whatever new system arrives near identifying psychological, emotional or behavioural issues using information from interviews, tests, records or reference materials. It is usually an unglamorous seat that nobody fights for, and it is the one that decides how the software is used on your job rather than to it.

Over the next 12 months

On this evidence I would not retrain out of this job, and I will say that plainly rather than hedge it. The task list here is dominated by work that stays with a person. What I would do with a year is get formally recognised for the layer around it (the systems, the compliance, the planning), so you are the one who understands the software instead of the one it is done to. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was clinical psychologists: only about 24% of its durable work is work you already do. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 32/100 here, with only 17% of the task list in the top band, and “assess if a client will benefit from cognitive behavioural therapy” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Clinical psychologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “apply treatment methods like psychotherapy and hypnosis for patient care”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 24% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 24% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Other psychologists
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “encourage the client to talk about and explore their feelings, attitudes and behaviours”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 12% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 12% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. This release publishes no median pay for that job, so I cannot show you what the move costs or pays. I do not recommend a move I cannot price.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Registered nurse practitioners
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “establish and maintain trust with patients to support their treatment”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 7% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 7% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 17% of its task weight, across 80 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The headlines about your trade disappearing
They are usually about the technology, not the timetable. Changes to work like encouraging the client to talk about and explore their feelings arrive through rules, insurance and money, slowly and visibly. This page tracks the task evidence and will move when it moves.
Retraining out of a job that is holding up
On this evidence I would not spend money leaving. Spend it on the layer around the job instead: the tools, the paperwork, the planning. That is where the change actually is.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Industrial-Organizational Psychologists is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In US official statistics this job is counted as Industrial-Organizational Psychologists, Clinical and Counseling Psychologists, School Psychologists and Psychologists, All Other. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for psychotherapists / cognitive behaviour therapists, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 17% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for psychotherapists / cognitive behaviour therapists. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for psychotherapists / cognitive behaviour therapists launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for psychotherapists / cognitive behaviour therapists yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for psychotherapists / cognitive behaviour therapists existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for psychotherapists / cognitive behaviour therapists launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 80 official task statements scored for Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists (United Kingdom, SOC 2224), 17% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 32 out of 100 (range 26–38, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Research new topic areas to maintain up-to-date subject knowledge” (83/100, very high); “Review current research and theories to inform professional practice” (83/100, very high); “Stay informed about current research and development trends” (83/100, very high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists” stay human?: About 71% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Use play or drawing techniques with younger children” (0/100, minimal); “Seek support and advice from a clinical supervisor on arising issues” (3/100, minimal); “Receive regular clinical and professional supervision from a more senior psychologist” (3/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 17% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 71% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Psychotherapists and cognitive behaviour therapists calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 80 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
7 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.