Mental health care consumers’ relative valuing of clinician performance information.
Abstract
Background Research demonstrates significant variability in mental health clinicians' overall and domain-specific effectiveness with their patients. Despite calls to increase patient access to performance information, little is known about patients' relative valuing of this information in the context of other treatment factors. Objective We aimed to obtain an understanding of patients' relative valuing of provider performance track records and other therapist and treatment characteristics for their mental health care decision making. Method Participants were 403 (M age = 41.20; 66.5% female) community mental health patients who completed a multicomponent survey that included an adapted delayed-discounting paradigm to examine the relative valuing. Multiple descriptive, quantitative indices of relative valuing were calculated, as well as an exploratory latent profile analysis to ascertain the presence of homogenous relative-valuing subgroups. Results Overall, participants valued provider track record information. They also evidenced relatively higher preference values for working with therapists who had specific efficacy in treating their primary problem domain, charged less, and with whom there is a high likelihood of establishing a good alliance. Two latent profiles were identified: one representing higher valuing of provider performance and another consistently representing less emphasis. Participants with higher track-record valuing were younger, believed that therapists ar…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Clients prefer providers who have the right expertise and success in treating their concerns in a cost-effective manner.
“Clients also indicate that they prefer providers who have the right expertise and success in treating their concerns in a cost-effective manner.28,29”
From Using Machine Learning to Match Clients and Therapy Providers: Evaluating Clinical Quality and Cost of Care (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 12
- Authors
- Boswell, J. F., Constantino, M. J., Oswald, J. M., Bugatti, M., Goodwin, B., & Yucel, R.
- Affiliations
- University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 301-308
- ISSN
- 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2117
- OpenAlex
- W2797699138
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 1.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (73049)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- mental health services, patient decision-making, treatment costs, latent profiles, community mental health patients
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Clinical Competence, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Professional-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review