ArticlePsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2026
Private Practice Providers' Experiences and Perceptions of Working in Public Mental Health Settings: A Mixed-Methods Study.
Article in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Characterizing clinical and counseling psychology graduate students' perceptions of evidence-based treatment usability and training.Psychological services · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePublic mental health settings are characterized by severe recruitment and retention challenges, with many providers leaving for more lucrative private practice settings. This mixed-methods study aimed to examine private practice providers' reasons for leaving public mental health settings as well as their experiences in and perceptions of both settings.
methodsPrivate practice mental health providers participated in a nationwide online survey. Providers responded to closed- and open-ended questions that assessed their reasons for leaving public mental health settings and their perceptions of the differences in care delivery between public and private settings. Their quantitative responses were descriptively characterized, and their qualitative responses were analyzed with content analysis.
resultsThree hundred seven licensed mental health providers completed the survey. Most providers (60%) had previously worked in a public mental health setting, and most of them reported leaving for higher wages (86%) and greater independence and flexibility (82%). In open-ended responses, providers emphasized that private practice has far more advantages than public mental health settings: the freedom and autonomy to practice clinically in the way that they wish, to set their own schedules and working conditions, to select the clients with whom they want to work, and to decide their preferred caseload volume.
conclusionsStudy findings align with commonly reported challenges of working in public mental health settings and underscore a unique advantage of private practice: provider freedom and autonomy. Policies are needed to enhance material working conditions and the sense of autonomy in public settings in order to better recruit and retain providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.