Cited by 12Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareMental Health Treatment and Access

Mental health care consumers’ relative valuing of clinician performance information.

Boswell, James F., Constantino, Michael J., Oswald, Jennifer M., Bugatti, Matteo, Goodwin, Brien, Yucel, Recai·2018·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000264

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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)
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