IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/restud/v92y2025i3p1699-1737..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Good Are Treatment Effects Without Treatment? Mental Health and the Reluctance to Use Talk Therapy

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher J Cronin
  • Matthew P Forsstrom
  • Nicholas W Papageorge

Abstract

Evidence across disciplines suggests that talk therapy is more curative than antidepressants for mild-to-moderate depression and anxiety. Yet, few patients use it. We develop a dynamic choice model to analyse patient demand for the treatment of depression and anxiety. The model incorporates myriad potential impediments to therapy use along with links between mental health improvements and earnings. The estimated model reveals that mental health improvements are valuable, directly through utility and indirectly through earnings. However, patient reluctance to use therapy is nearly impervious to reasonable counterfactual policies (e.g. lowering prices or removing other costs). Patient behaviour might reflect stigma, biases in beliefs about the effectiveness of therapy, or a distaste for discussing personal or painful issues with a stranger. More broadly, the benefits of therapy estimated in randomized trials tell only half the story. If patients do not use treatments outside of an experimental setting—and we fail to understand why or how to get them to—estimated treatment effects cannot be leveraged.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher J Cronin & Matthew P Forsstrom & Nicholas W Papageorge, 2025. "What Good Are Treatment Effects Without Treatment? Mental Health and the Reluctance to Use Talk Therapy," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 92(3), pages 1699-1737.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:92:y:2025:i:3:p:1699-1737.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/restud/rdae061
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:restud:v:92:y:2025:i:3:p:1699-1737.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/restud .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.