For whom does a match matter most? Patient-level moderators of evidence-based patient-therapist matching

A double-blind, randomized controlled trial tested the effectiveness of a personalized Match System in which patients are assigned to therapists with a "track record" of effectively treating a given patient's primary concern(s) (e.g., anxiety). Matched patients demonstrated significantly better outcomes than those assigned through usual pragmatic means. The present study examined patient-level moderators of this match effect. We hypothesized that the match benefits would be especially pronounced for patients who presented with (a) greater overall problem severity, and (b) greater problem complexity (i.e., number of elevated problem domains). We also explored if patient racial/ethnic minority status moderated the condition effect.

Patients were 218 adults randomized to the Match or as-usual assignment condition, and then treated naturalistically by 48 therapists. The primary outcome was the Treatment Outcome Package (TOP), a multidimensional assessment tool that also primed the Match algorithm (based on historical, therapist-level effectiveness data), and assessed trial patients' symptoms/functioning and demographic information at baseline. Moderator effects were tested as patient-level interactions in three-level hierarchical linear models.

The beneficial match effect was significantly more pronounced for patients with higher initial severity (-0.03, 95% CI -0.05, -0.01) and problem complexity (-0.01, 95% CI -0.02, -0.004), yet the high correlation between severity and complexity called into question the uniqueness of the complexity moderator effect. Moreover, the match effect was more pronounced for racial/ethnic minority patients (i.e., nonwhite; -0.05, 95% CI -0.09, -0.01).

Measurement-based matching is especially effective for patients with certain characteristics, which further informs mental health treatment personalization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).