MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322705320 · doi:10.2196/38696

Consumer Expectations and Attitudes About Psychotherapy: Survey Study

2023· article· en· W4322705320 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erin O’Callaghan, Heather G. Belanger, Steven Lucero, Shannon Boston, Mirène Winsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthTelehealthPopulationPerceptionPublic healthPsychologyMental health careMedicineHealth careFamily medicinePsychiatryTelemedicineNursingPolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although mental illness is common among adults in the United States, access to, and public perception of, mental health care continue to present as key barriers to care. OBJECTIVE: Given the importance of attitudes toward, and perceptions of, mental health treatment in the successful access to mental health care and treatment of mental health issues, the primary goal of this survey study was to further investigate consumer perspectives of psychotherapy among adults in the United States; specifically, adding to the literature by investigating perceptions of both the general public and patients receiving telehealth. More specifically, the aims were to better understand openness to, and satisfaction with, therapy; perceptions, preferences, and expectations around therapy; and perceptions of psychotropic medication. METHODS: An electronic survey was administered to current and former patients (those receiving psychotherapy) of Brightside, a nationwide telehealth company, as well as to the general public; both were convenience samples. Using the same survey questions, Brightside surveyed its own members (using Qualtrics; Qualtrics International Inc) and the general population (using SurveyMonkey's Audience tool; Momentive). This survey included questions about basic participant demographics, as well as questions about current mental health treatment, perceptions about therapy, and therapists' qualities. RESULTS: A total of 714 people completed the survey. The data were fairly evenly split between those collected from Brightside patients (368/714, 51.5%) and those collected from the general public (346/714, 48.5%). Combining both samples, overall participation was 67.1% (479/714) women; 73.1% (522/714) White, 7.3% (52/714) Asian, 6.7% (48/714) African American, and 7.4% (53/714) Hispanic or Latinx; largely aged 25 to 34 years (255/714, 35.7%) or 35 to 44 years (187/714, 26.2%); from either the Mid-Atlantic (131/714, 18.3%) or South Atlantic (129/714, 18.1%) regions of the country; and most (402/714, 56.3%) earning annual salaries of US $30,000 to US $100,000. There were generally favorable perceptions of both psychotherapy and psychiatric medication. Selecting a therapist as well as cost and insurance are the common factors in therapy that are important to patients. The most commonly held perception of psychotherapy duration was indefinite (250/714, 35%). Very few (58/714, 8.1%) thought that therapy typically lasts 1 to 3 months. Most of the participants (414/714, 58%) thought that evidence-based practice was important. CONCLUSIONS: Public education is needed to increase awareness of the typical duration and cost of psychotherapy. There seem to be generally favorable perceptions of both psychotherapy and psychotropic medication. Selecting a therapist as well as cost and insurance are the common factors in therapy that are important to patients. Practitioners and those marketing their services might consider using their marketing campaigns to counter some of the more common falsely held beliefs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.235
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicMental Health Treatment and Access→French-language works237,207→