Provider Guidance Drives Use of New Mental Health Treatments

Mental health care is evolving rapidly. Innovations now include evidence-based digital therapy programs, device-based treatments such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and newer medication approaches like esketamine. Many of these options have received recent regulatory approval or clearance and are becoming part of clinical practice, but they remain unfamiliar to many patients.

New survey data shows people with depression and anxiety often approach unfamiliar treatments with caution. A national YouGov survey of 487 U.S. adults who report depression and/or anxiety, conducted for Grow Therapy in February 2026, found that patients weigh safety, clinical evidence, and cost when considering new mental health options. Respondents expressed openness to certain innovations but were more reserved about complex or highly supervised treatments.

Actual use of newer formats remains limited. Low adoption does not necessarily indicate a lack of interest or clinical value — it reflects the reality that regulatory approval is just a first step. After a treatment is approved, clinicians and patients still need to determine clinical suitability for an individual, and whether the treatment is practically accessible given cost, insurance coverage, and monitoring needs.

Choosing which tools to include in a care plan requires more than awareness. It requires careful clinical guidance, review of the evidence, and attention to real-world accessibility.

Types of emerging mental health treatments

Beyond traditional in-person psychotherapy and standard antidepressant medications, a range of newer treatment formats is now used in clinical care. These options differ in how they work, how they are delivered, and which patients they may suit best. The survey focused on three broad categories:

TMS versus traditional antidepressants

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and oral antidepressant medications both aim to relieve depression but work very differently. Antidepressant pills change neurotransmitter systems and usually take several weeks to reach full effect. TMS is a noninvasive device-based treatment that delivers targeted magnetic pulses to brain regions involved in mood regulation and is typically given across a course of in-office sessions. Providers commonly consider TMS for people who have not improved after one or more antidepressant trials; a psychiatrist or qualified prescriber can evaluate whether TMS is clinically appropriate based on an individual’s history and needs.

Possible side effects and proof matter more than cost

When people think about trying new mental health tools — whether they are newly available in clinics or simply new to the individual — safety and clinical evidence carry the most weight, though cost remains an important factor.

In the survey, 66% of adults with depression or anxiety said possible side effects were a top concern before trying a new treatment. For example, esketamine products used for treatment-resistant depression can cause dissociation, dizziness, and nausea and are administered in settings where patients are monitored after each dose. Device-based approaches such as TMS are generally noninvasive, but some patients report temporary scalp discomfort, mild headaches, or transient facial muscle twitching during or after sessions.

Cost was a top concern for 61% of respondents, and 53% emphasized the importance of research demonstrating effectiveness. Concern about side effects also varied by age: only about half of Gen Z respondents identified side effects as a primary consideration, compared with higher shares among older adults, suggesting generational differences in familiarity and comfort with newer formats.

For clinicians, these patient concerns are central to shared decision-making. Exploring what patients worry about can guide collaborative conversations about expected benefits, likely side effects, monitoring needs, and how a treatment would fit into day-to-day life.

As Sturges notes, evaluating an option means looking beyond headlines: consider a person’s treatment history, likely benefits, side effects, route of administration, monitoring requirements, and how the treatment fits into the realities of their life. Payment and insurance coverage matter as well, because prior authorization, formularies, and reimbursement often determine whether a promising treatment is accessible in practice.

Altogether, the findings suggest interest in newer treatment approaches exists, but actual adoption depends on perceived safety, supporting evidence, affordability, and confidence that privacy and data protection will be maintained when care involves digital tools or remote platforms.

Many patients are open to innovation, but providers must balance needs and accessibility

More than half of respondents (56%) said they had not discussed newly approved or advanced treatments with a health care provider in the past 12 months, and nearly 22% reported they were not currently seeing a provider for their depression or anxiety. These responses indicate many patients have not had an opportunity to learn whether emerging treatment options might fit their care.

In this sample, 12% said a provider discussed advanced treatments and they ultimately tried at least one; 10% said they considered such treatments but chose not to pursue them. Clinicians typically weigh a patient’s treatment history, likely benefit, monitoring needs, and insurance coverage when deciding whether to introduce newer approaches into the treatment conversation. Because patients often first learn about emerging options through clinicians, strong clinical guidance helps ensure decisions are grounded in evidence and real-world access considerations.

Patients report the highest openness to digital support tools among emerging options

Survey respondents indicated greater openness to digitally delivered support compared with device-based or medication-based innovations. Half (50%) of people with depression and/or anxiety said they would be open to trying DaylightRx, a fully automated digital program that applies CBT-based techniques to help manage worry and anxiety and is intended to complement traditional care.

Fewer respondents said they were open to supervised clinical options: 41% were open to trying an esketamine nasal spray for treatment-resistant depression (administered with monitoring), and 34% said they were open to in-office device-based TMS sessions such as NeuroStar or BrainsWay Deep TMS. These differences suggest patients may view digitally delivered CBT-style programs as extensions of familiar care, while treatments that require structured clinical visits, monitoring, or specialized equipment are introduced more selectively.

Confidence in digital mental health tools adherence remains a challenge

Although many patients are open to digital support tools, far fewer feel confident they could maintain engagement with self-guided programs over time. Only 15% said they were very confident they could stick with an at-home, self-guided digital treatment regimen for weeks or months, while 27% expressed little or no confidence in their ability to do so.

These results suggest many users may benefit from additional supports when using digital mental health tools independently. Approaches such as measurement-informed care — regular monitoring of symptoms and progress with clinician involvement — can help patients stay engaged and allow care plans to be adjusted as needed.

How patients and providers can evaluate new mental health treatment options

As digital therapeutics and AI-assisted clinical tools become more integrated into behavioral health, survey responses show people are generally open to advances when they are introduced through trusted clinical relationships and backed by clear evidence. Even so, a gap remains between openness and actual use: only 12% of respondents reported trying advanced treatments despite broader interest.

If you’re interested in newer mental health technologies, look for transparency about clinical evidence (peer-reviewed studies or clinical trial registrations), regulatory clearance or approval, involvement of licensed clinicians, and clear information about monitoring and side effects. National advocacy organizations and ClinicalTrials.gov can help explain approvals and studies in plain language and offer additional context for patients exploring options beyond standard care.

Ultimately, tools that support clinicians without replacing therapeutic relationships are most useful. Clinical guidance and practical realities — evidence, monitoring needs, insurance coverage, and affordability — remain central to how patients and providers evaluate whether a newer treatment is right for an individual.

Methodology

This survey was conducted by YouGov for Grow Therapy and fielded between February 26 and February 27, 2026. Results are based on 487 completed surveys of U.S. residents aged 18 or older who report having depression and/or anxiety. Data are unweighted; the margin of error for the overall sample is approximately +/-3% at a 95% confidence level.