Therapist-Level Moderators of Patient-Therapist Match Effectiveness in Community Psychotherapy.

Based on patient-reported outcomes data analyzed at the provider level, there is evidence that psychotherapists can possess effectiveness strengths and weaknesses when treating patients with different presenting concerns. These within-therapist differences hold promise for personalizing care by prospectively matching patients to therapists' historical effectiveness strengths. In a double-masked randomized controlled trial (RCT; NCT02990000), such matching outperformed pragmatically determined usual case assignment-which leaves personalized, measurement-based matching to chance-in naturalistic outpatient psychotherapy (Constantino et al., JAMA Psychiatry 78:960-969, 2021). Demonstrating that personalization can be even more precise, some research has demonstrated that the strength of this positive match effect was moderated by certain patient characteristics. Notably, though, it could also be that matching is especially important for some therapists to achieve more effective outcomes. Examining this novel question, the present study drew on the Constantino et al. (JAMA Psychiatry 78:960-969, 2021) trial data to explore three therapist-level moderators of matching: (a) effectiveness "spread" (i.e., greater performance variability across patients' presenting problem domains), (b) overestimation of their measurement-based and problem-specific effectiveness, and (c) the frequency with which they use patient-reported routine outcomes monitoring in their practice. Patients were 206 adults, randomized to the match or control condition, treated by 40 therapists who were crossed over conditions. The therapist variables were assessed at the trial's baseline and patients' symptomatic/functional impairment and global distress were assessed regularly up to 16 weeks of treatment. Hierarchical linear models revealed that only therapist effectiveness spread significantly moderated the match effect for the global distress outcome; for therapists with more spread, the match effect was more pronounced, whereas the match effect was minimal for therapists with less effectiveness spread. Notably, two therapist-level covariates unexpectedly emerged as significant moderators for the symptomatic/functional impairment outcome; for clinicians who consistently treated patients with higher versus lower average severity levels and who relatedly treated a higher proportion of patients with primary presenting problems of substance misuse or violence, the beneficial match effect was even stronger. Thus, measurement-based matching may be especially potent for therapists with more variable effectiveness across problem domains, and who consistently treat patients with more severe presenting concerns or with particular primary problems, which provides further precision in conceptualizing personalized care.

A refreshing and necessary start: Commentary on Westra and Di Bartolomeo (2024).

Westra and Di Bartolomeo (2024) make a compelling case for integrating "process acuity" skills into routine clinical training. The authors have done the field a service by articulating the need for novel and process-science-informed psychotherapy training and practice. This brief commentary echoes the authors' observations about the status quo of clinical training and expands upon what else will need to be considered to fully realize the goals of their proposal. Specifically, research on negative process signals has outpaced research on the optimal responses to such process signals. Further, process-outcome associations and the relevance of other technical mechanisms vary by the therapist/trainee (and dyad), which will require enhanced training personalization and precision. Future work on implementation will require elucidating responsive clinical strategies based on the accumulation of more sophisticated and contextualized process-outcome and training research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Routine Outcome Monitoring and Clinical Feedback in Psychotherapy: Recent Advances and Future Directions.

In the past decade, there has been an increase in research related to the routine collection and active use of standardized patient data in psychotherapy. Research has increasingly focused on personalization of care to patients, clinical skills and interventions that modulate treatment outcomes, and implementation strategies, all of which appear to enhance the beneficial effects of ROM and feedback. In this article, we summarize trends and recent advances in the research on this topic and identify several essential directions for the field in the short to medium term. We anticipate a broadening of research from the focus on average effects to greater specificity around what kinds of feedback, provided at what time, to which individuals, in what settings, are most beneficial. We also propose that the field needs to focus on issues of health equity, ensuring that ROM can be a vehicle for increased wellbeing for those who need it most. The complexity of mental healthcare systems means that there may be multiple viable measurement solutions with varying costs and benefits to diverse stakeholders in different treatment contexts, and research is needed to identify the most influential components in each of these contexts.

Therapeutic techniques and session impact: A practice-research network study in private practice.

Objective: This study investigated the relationship between therapeutic techniques and session impact, by examining the replicability of findings observed in a university-based training clinic (Boswell et al., 2010) in another practice-oriented setting: private practice.Method: N = 8 therapists completed session-level assessments of their technique use for N = 38 clients. The same client sample completed session-level assessments of session outcome. Technique-outcome associations were examined with multilevel models.Results: As in Boswell et al., common factors were associated with positive session impact. For clients who received higher average common factor techniques (relative to their own therapist's caseload), session impact was the poorest in sessions with higher behavioral change techniques use (relative to the client's own average). Moreover, clients with the lowest average common factor techniques (relative to their therapist's caseload) reported better session impact in sessions that involved a higher degree of session-level behavioral change techniques (relative to their own average).Conclusion: In line with Boswell et al., therapists should be mindful of the consistency of their routine technique use between- and within-clients, and this can be aided through collection of their own practice-oriented data.

A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Attitudes Regarding Personalized Provider Selection and Patient-Therapist Matching.

This study explored mental health care patients and therapists' perspectives on using therapists' measurement-based and problem-specific effectiveness data to inform case assignments - a type of treatment personalization that has been shown to outperform non-measurement-based case assignment as usual (Constantino et al., 2021). We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 8 patients (75% women; M age = 33.75 years) and 8 therapists (75% women; M age = 47.50 years). The interview protocols were unique to stakeholder group. Recorded responses were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by four judges using a blend of consensual qualitative research and grounded theory methods. Derived patient domains included preferred characteristics of a provider, and experiences and suggestions regarding provider selection. Within the domains, most patients expressed an interest in accessing more specific provider information online. Additionally, most patients indicated that both provider outcome track records and personal preference information (e.g., therapist characteristics) should be considered in the therapist selection process. All patients endorsed being comfortable with having the ability to select a provider based on a list of empirically well-matched recommendations. Derived therapist domains included using routine outcomes monitoring for patient-provider matching, referral source and direct patient use of preferred provider lists, and improvements to the provider selection process. Within the domains, all therapists remarked that outcome data would be useful for matching patients to providers; however, most also indicated that outcome data should not be the only factor used in provider selection. All therapists expressed a willingness to be included in preferred provider lists that incorporate track record data. Overall, both patients and therapists held generally positive views toward using therapist effectiveness data to help personalize mental health care. Yet, both stakeholder groups acknowledged that other personalization factors should be considered alongside these data. Based on these results, our team is in the process of implementing patient-therapist match strategies in larger and more diverse mental health care contexts.

Implementation Science and Practice-Oriented Research: Convergence and Complementarity.

Implementation science is the scientific study of methods to promote the uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices in routine care, with the goal of improving the quality and effectiveness of health services (Bauer et al., 2015). In addition to this common goal, practice-oriented psychotherapy research (and researchers) and implementation science (and scientists) share a common focus on the people and the places where treatment happens. Thus, there exists strong potential for combining these two approaches. In this article, we provide a primer on implementation science for psychotherapy researchers and highlight important areas and examples of convergence and complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research. Specifically, we (a) define and describe the core features of implementation science; (b) discuss similarities and areas of complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research; (c) discuss a case example that exemplifies the integration of implementation science and practice-oriented research; and (d) propose directions for future research and collaborations that leverage both implementation science and practice-oriented research.

Outcome trajectories in a county mental health clinic before and after telemental health: a retrospective COVID-19 cohort study.

Background/objectives: Telemental health (TMH) care has received increased attention, most recently due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many treatment settings and clinicians were forced to rapidly shift to TMH modalities, including clinicians with limited exposure to and possibly negative attitudes toward alternative treatment delivery formats. With the shift to new modalities, effectiveness research is necessary to understand if patients are receiving the same quality of care as before the pandemic and their receipt of mostly in person services. This study compared the naturalistic treatment outcome trajectories for a cohort of patients who received in-person services prior to the pandemic and a distinct cohort of patients who received TMH services after the onset of the pandemic, in a community mental health setting with limited exposure to TMH prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and methods: We adopted a retrospective cohort design to examine treatment modality as a between-group moderator of symptom change trajectory on the self-report Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in a sample of N = 958 patients in the Northeast United States. Treatment durations differed in the naturalistic treatment setting and we examined patient-reported outcomes up to a maximum of one year. Results: Statistically significant average decreases in symptom severity were found over the course of up to one year of treatment, yet the average outcome trajectory was not significantly different between two modality cohorts (in person delivery before the pandemic versus TMH delivery after pandemic onset). Conclusion: These findings suggest that even in a setting with limited exposure to or training in TMH, the average outcome trajectory for patients who received TMH was statistically similar to the outcome trajectory for patients in an earlier cohort who received in-person services prior to the pandemic onset. Overall, the results appear to support continued use of TMH services in community treatment settings.

Revisiting our approach to behavioral health referrals.

This system of matching referrals to behavioral health practitioners' historical effectiveness seeks to strengthen patient outcomes.

A baseline comparison of three diagnostic groups using the Progress Monitoring Tool for Eating Disorders.

Utilisation of intensive inpatient treatment for eating disorders (EDs) has climbed in the last decade, illuminating a need for better consensus on what constitutes effective treatment and context-appropriate progress/outcome monitoring during residential stays. The novel Progress Monitoring Tool for Eating Disorders (PMED) measure is specifically designed for inpatient settings. Previous research supports the factorial validity and internal consistency of the PMED; however, additional work is needed to determine its appropriateness for complex patient populations. This study used measurement invariance (MI) testing to determine if the PMED administered at programme admission measures the same items in similar ways across patients with anorexia nervosa restricting- and binge-purge subtypes (AN-R; AN-BP) and bulimia nervosa (BN, N = 1121; Mage  = 24.33 years, SD = 10.20; 100% female). Progressively constrained models were used to determine the level of invariance upheld between the three groups. Results indicated that, while the PMED meets configural and metric MI, it does not display scalar invariance. Said otherwise, the PMED similarly assesses constructs and items across AN-R, AN-BP, and BN, however the same score overall may reflect different levels of psychopathology for patients in one diagnostic category versus another. Comparisons of severity between different EDs should be made with caution, however the PMED appears to be a sound tool for understanding the baseline functioning of patients with EDs in an inpatient setting.

Therapist perceptions of their own measurement-based, problem-specific effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcomes data reveal differences both in therapists' global effectiveness across their average patient (between-therapist effect) and in treating different problems within their caseload (within-therapist effects). Yet, it is unclear how accurately therapists perceive their own measurement-based, problem-specific effectiveness and whether such self-perceptions predict global between-therapist performance differences. We explored these questions in naturalistic psychotherapy. METHOD: For 50 therapists, we drew on data from a mean of 27 past patients (total N = 1,363) who completed a multidimensional outcome measure-Treatment Outcome Package (TOP)-at pre- and posttreatment. For each of 12 outcome domains (e.g., depression, anxiety), TOP data classified therapists as historically "effective," "neutral," or "ineffective." Unaware of their data-driven classifications, therapists rated their perceived effectiveness for each domain. We conducted chi-square analyses to determine whether therapists predicted their own measurement-based effectiveness classifications to a level greater than chance. We then used multilevel modeling to test whether therapists' problem-specific perceptions predicted global between-therapist performance differences. RESULTS: For all but one outcome domain, therapists were no better than chance at predicting their measurement-based effectiveness classification. Additionally, controlling for patient baseline impairment, therapists who consistently overestimated their problem-specific effectiveness had patients who reported worse global outcomes than patients whose therapist more accurately estimated their effectiveness. Conversely, therapists who underestimated their problem-specific effectiveness had patients who reported better outcomes than patients whose therapist over- or accurately estimated their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Therapist humility may differentiate the most from least globally effective therapists, and this virtue should be cultivated in clinical trainings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

An Exploration of Intervention Augmentation in a Single Case.

Recent work has highlighted that process-outcome relationships are likely to vary depending on the client, yet much work remains to be done in the area of tailoring interventions to a given client. This naturalistic single-case analysis provides an example of augmenting a treatment protocol with "off protocol" relaxation methods, based on routinely collected outcome information to guide shared decision making. Intensive case study analyses were applied to one client with principal generalized anxiety disorder and comorbid major depressive disorder receiving transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral therapy. The client completed two routine anxiety and depression symptom and functioning scales prior to each session of naturalistic treatment. Time series analyses were applied to the two symptom measures. Among the results, (a) significant linear decreases in anxiety and depression from baseline to posttreatment were observed; and (b) the introduction of relaxation methods had a significant impact on the course of anxiety symptom change. In conclusion, routine outcome assessment can be used to inform intervention augmentation with individual clients. Furthermore, regular assessment is needed to determine if a client may benefit from an alternative set of specific intervention strategies.

Baseline overly accommodating interpersonal problems in relation to parsed alliance-outcome associations in cognitive behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety disorder.

Given its interpersonal underpinnings, relational factors may be salient in psychotherapy for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Supporting this point, research has indicated a positive total alliance-improvement correlation in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for GAD. However, less research has disaggregated this correlation into within- and between-patient components, or examined theory-informed ways in which patient characteristics influence to these components. Thus, we first investigated parsed alliance-outcome associations in CBT for GAD. Second, consistent with theory that alliance may represent a direct interpersonal change correlate, we tested whether within-patient alliance improvements were especially therapeutic for patients with higher levels of an interpersonal problem prototypical of GAD-over accommodation. Also, consistent with theory that between-patient differences in overall alliance may be influenced by patients' preexisting relational characteristics, we tested whether more overly accommodating patients reported poorer average alliances that, in turn, related to worse outcomes.Sixty-nine patients received variants of CBT. Patients rated over accommodation at baseline, and alliance and outcome across treatment.As hypothesized, within-patient alliance improvements correlated with subsequent anxiety reduction, and this association was stronger for more overly accommodating patients. All between-patient associations were nonsignificant.Results help clarify the nuanced role of alliance in CBT for GAD.

The need for a measurement-based care professional practice guideline.

Professional practice guidelines (PPGs) are intended to promote a high level of professional practice and serve as an educational resource, providing pragmatic guidance in a clinical area for psychologists. Measurement-based care (MBC) is an evidence-based psychological practice with accumulating empirical support and alignment with patient-centered care. In connection with the American Psychological Association's Advisory Committee for Measurement-based Care and the Mental and Behavioral Health Registry, this article outlines various lines of support for the development and implementation of an MBC PPG. In addition to research evidence, we address the demonstrated need of this guideline across three domains: public benefit, professional guidance, and legal and regulatory issues. Consistent with the aspirational spirit of a PPG, this article proposes a draft PPG statement and highlights how an MBC PPG would improve service delivery, facilitate implementation of an evidence-based practice associated with symptom reduction, improved retention, and greater patient satisfaction, as well as create a framework that will better align changes in reimbursement models with patients' and providers' treatment goals. We also identify key future directions and critical gaps in MBC science and implementation that require attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Trajectories of interpersonal problems in residential eating disorder treatment: Exploring the influence of primary diagnosis.

Baseline interpersonal problems have been associated with treatment outcome in eating disorders (ED) and are important for understanding ED maintenance and aetiology. Despite this evidence, little is known about trajectories of change in interpersonal problems in the context of treatment, particularly in intensive ED treatment. This study examined the trajectory of total interpersonal problems in residential ED treatment, as well as two subdomains previously highlighted in ED research of being overly Cold (interpersonally distant) or overly Domineering (interpersonally controlling), as a function of different primary presenting ED diagnoses: anorexia nervosa restricting subtype (AN-R), binge-purge subtype (AN-BP), and bulimia nervosa or binge eating (BN/BED). Interpersonal problem data were collected at admission, discharge, and 6-month follow-up. Trajectories were analysed with multilevel models. Results showed small-to-medium statistically significant reductions in interpersonal problems across diagnostic groups from admission to discharge for total interpersonal scores, and gains appeared to be maintained at follow-up for both AN groups. Patients diagnosed with primary AN experienced steeper declines in total interpersonal problems from admission to follow-up compared with patients diagnosed with BN/BED, with AN-R experiencing the steepest trajectory. Planned contrasts indicated anyone with relevant binge eating behaviours had higher average levels of both Cold, as well as Domineering problems. Exploratory contrasts suggested that patients who had more Domineering problems also exhibited more binge symptoms and were typically slower to improve. Overall, results suggest interpersonal problems are generally malleable in residential ED treatment, yet change patterns differ by presenting ED symptoms and interpersonal problem subdomain.

Patient-therapist expectancy convergence and outcome in naturalistic psychotherapy.

Research on close relationships demonstrates that dyadic convergence, or two people becoming more similar in their experiences and/or beliefs over time, is commonplace and adaptive. As psychotherapy involves a close relationship, patient-therapist convergence processes may influence treatment-specific outcomes. Although prior research supports that patients and therapists tend to converge on their alliance perspectives over time, which associates with subsequent patient improvement, no research has similarly examined belief convergence during therapy. Accordingly, this study focused on patient-therapist convergence in their outcome expectations (OE), a belief variable associated with patient improvement when measured from individual participant perspectives. We predicted both that significant OE convergence would occur and relate to better posttreatment outcome. Data derived from a trial of naturalistic psychotherapy. Patients and therapists repeatedly rated their respective OE through treatment, and patients rated their symptom/functional outcomes at posttreatment. For dyads with the requisite OE data (N = 154), we tested our questions using multilevel structural equation modeling. Counter to our hypotheses, there was no discernable OE convergence pattern over treatment (γ100 = 0.01, SE = 0.03, p = .690) and OE convergence was unrelated to outcome at the between-dyad level (γ020 = 2.37, SE = 10.28, p = .818). However, on its own, higher early patient OE was significantly associated with better outcome at the between-dyad level (γ050 = -0.04, SE = 0.01, p = .007). Results suggest that OE may be more of a facilitative patient versus relational process factor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Clinician perceptions of nomothetic and individualized patient-reported outcome measures in measurement-based care.

Objective: Measurement-based care (MBC), which encompasses routine outcome monitoring (ROM) and measurement feedback systems (MFSs), is an evidence-based practice (EBP) supporting treatment personalization and clinical responsiveness. Despite MBC's effectiveness, clinicians report reservations regarding its utility, which may be a function of overreliance on nomothetic (i.e., standardized) measures. Although research suggests that individualized (i.e., idiographic) patient-reported outcome measures (I-PROMs) may have the potential to overcome these obstacles, little is known regarding clinicians' perceptions of different measurement approaches to MBC. Methods: This study examined clinicians' perceptions of the clinical utility, relevance to treatment planning, and practicality of nomothetic, individualized, and combined clinical feedback provided by a simulated MFS. Three hundred and twenty-nine clinicians were randomized to one of three conditions that presented a clinical vignette comprising: (a) nomothetic, (b) individualized, or (c) combined clinical feedback. Results: Participants' perceptions of the clinical feedback were not affected by the measurement approach. However, cognitive behavioral participants reported more positive perceptions of all aspects associated with the clinical feedback. Conclusion: These results were consistent with previous findings, suggesting that clinicians' theoretical orientation may have a significant impact on their perceptions of MBC, and should be considered when designing and implementing these systems.

Therapist-level moderation of within- and between-therapist process-outcome associations.

OBJECTIVE: Although higher quality patient-therapist alliance and more positive patient outcome expectation (OE) consistently predict symptomatic/functional improvement in psychotherapy, most research has failed to capture the nuance in these process-outcome relations by parsing them into within-therapist (i.e., differences between patients treated by the same therapist) and between-therapist (i.e., differences between therapists' average process/outcome ratings across all patients in their caseloads) components. Moreover, the few studies that have done so have produced mixed results, suggesting the possibility of systematic variability in these associations (i.e., moderators). One potential source of such variability could be providers themselves; that is, different therapists could use these processes to differing therapeutic benefit. This study tested the alliance- and OE-outcome associations at both the within- and between-therapist levels and explored therapist-level moderators of them. METHOD: Data derived from 212 adult outpatients treated naturalistically by 42 psychotherapists as part of a randomized trial that compared different case-assignment methods. Patients completed measures of alliance, OE, and outcome repeatedly throughout treatment. Therapist characteristics were assessed at baseline. RESULTS: Multilevel structural equation models revealed that, at the between-therapist level, only higher alliance quality, but not more optimistic OE, was associated with greater caseload-level improvement. At the within-therapist level, only more optimistic OE, but not higher alliance quality, was associated with patient improvement. Finally, therapists' self-perceived alliance-fostering effectiveness and cognitive-behavioral orientation moderated the within- and between-therapist alliance-outcome associations, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that different therapists use common treatment processes to differing therapeutic benefit, which can inform more personalized clinical practices and trainings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHOD: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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).

Skill Acquisition During Transdiagnostic Treatment With the Unified Protocol.

The Unified Protocol (UP) for Transdiagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders is an emotion-focused, cognitive-behavioral intervention developed to address the full range of anxiety, depressive, and related disorders. The UP consists of core therapeutic skills that, though unique in focus, are each designed to promote an approach-oriented stance toward emotional experiences. The goal of the present investigation was to characterize changes in these skills for patients that received a course of treatment with the UP, as well as to examine associations between skills and symptoms changes. Patients with principal anxiety disorders, assigned to receive treatment with the UP (N = 88) as part of a randomized controlled trial, were included in this study. They completed validated self-report measures of UP skills (Understanding Emotions, Mindful Emotion Awareness, Cognitive Flexibility, Countering Emotional Behaviors, and Interoceptive Awareness and Tolerance), as well as clinician-rated measures of psychological symptoms. Skill measures improved significantly over the course of 12 to 16 UP treatment sessions and changes in these skills measures were associated with improvements in anxiety symptoms. Determining whether improvement on all the skills learned during a course of treatment with UP is associated with symptom remission is critical to establishing the most streamlined and efficient interventions that may ultimately be best suited to widespread dissemination.

Effect of Matching Therapists to Patients vs Assignment as Usual on Adult Psychotherapy Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Psychotherapists possess strengths and weaknesses in treating different mental health problems, yet performance information is rarely harnessed in mental health care (MHC). To our knowledge, no prior studies have tested the causal efficacy of prospectively matching patients to therapists with empirically derived strengths in treating patients' specific concerns. Objective: To test the effect of measurement-based matching vs case assignment as usual (CAU) on psychotherapy outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, adult outpatients were recruited between November 2017 and April 2019. Assessments occurred at baseline and repeatedly during treatment at 6 community MHC clinics in Cleveland, Ohio. To be eligible, patients had to make their own MHC decisions. Of 1329 individuals screened, 288 were randomized. Excluding those who withdrew or provided no assessments beyond baseline, 218 patients treated by 48 therapists were included in the primary modified intent-to-treat analyses. Interventions: Therapist performance was assessed pretrial across 15 or more historical cases based on patients' pre-post reporting across 12 problem domains of the routinely administered Treatment Outcome Package (TOP). Therapists were classified in each domain as effective (on average, patients' symptoms reliably improved), neutral (on average, patients' symptoms neither reliably improved nor deteriorated), or ineffective (on average, patients' symptoms reliably deteriorated). Trial patients were randomly assigned to good-fitting therapists (matched group) or were assigned to therapists pragmatically (CAU group). There were multiple match levels, ranging from therapists being effective on the 3 most elevated domains reported by patients and not ineffective on any others (highest) to not effective on the most elevated domains reported by patients but also not ineffective on any domain (lowest). Therapists treated patients in the matched and CAU groups, and treatment was unmanipulated. Main Outcomes and Measures: General symptomatic and functional impairment across all TOP domains (average z scores relative to the general population mean; higher scores indicate greater impairment), global distress (Symptom Checklist-10; higher scores indicate greater distress), and domain-specific impairment on each individual's most elevated TOP-assessed problem. Results: Of 218 patients, 147 (67.4%) were female, and 193 (88.5%) were White. The mean (SD) age was 33.9 (11.2) years. Multilevel modeling indicated a match effect on reductions in weekly general symptomatic and functional impairment (γ110 = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.05 to -0.01; d = 0.75), global distress (γ110 = -0.16; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.02; d = 0.50), and domain-specific impairment (γ110 = -0.01; 95% CI -0.01 to -0.006; d = 0.60), with no adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Matching patients with therapists based on therapists' performance strengths can improve MHC outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02990000.