AI Mental Health Advisor
University of British Columbia
Greater Vancouver Metropolitan Area
16K followers
500+ connections
About
Services
Articles by Scott
Activity
16K followers
-
Scott Wallace, PhD Clinical Psychology reacted on thisWhen Getting Better Is Bad For Business: A Founder’s Dilemma Mental health AI cannot be built on subscription logic if recovery makes users leave. In most consumer software, success increases retention. The better the product, the longer users stay, the more revenue the company earns, and the stronger the business becomes. Mental health reverses that logic. A good intervention should increase agency, more agency should reduce dependence, and reduced dependence should reduce use. That is the tension I address in my new essay on mental health AI, business models, and the unit economics of recovery. So how do you make money when your product works so well that people need it less? The answer is not to design more addictive engagement loops, streaks, nudges, emotional dependency, or faux-therapeutic companionship. The answer is to build models where clinical success creates commercial value: ‣ population-level contracts, ‣ covered benefits, ‣ reimbursed care pathways, ‣ outcomes-based pricing, ‣ digital front-door models, ‣ prescription digital therapeutics, and ‣ clinically governed data assets. For founders, VCs, clinicians, and builders in mental health AI, this is no longer a philosophical issue. It is a diligence issue, a governance issue, and a survival issue. Where do you think the viable model is? ‣ Covered benefit? ‣ Outcome-based contracting? ‣ Hybrid care? ‣ Reimbursement? ‣ Something else? I’d genuinely value your feedback here. Full essay in the first comment.
-
Scott Wallace, PhD Clinical Psychology reacted on thisWhen Getting Better Is Bad For Business: A Founder’s Dilemma Mental health AI cannot be built on subscription logic if recovery makes users leave. In most consumer software, success increases retention. The better the product, the longer users stay, the more revenue the company earns, and the stronger the business becomes. Mental health reverses that logic. A good intervention should increase agency, more agency should reduce dependence, and reduced dependence should reduce use. That is the tension I address in my new essay on mental health AI, business models, and the unit economics of recovery. So how do you make money when your product works so well that people need it less? The answer is not to design more addictive engagement loops, streaks, nudges, emotional dependency, or faux-therapeutic companionship. The answer is to build models where clinical success creates commercial value: ‣ population-level contracts, ‣ covered benefits, ‣ reimbursed care pathways, ‣ outcomes-based pricing, ‣ digital front-door models, ‣ prescription digital therapeutics, and ‣ clinically governed data assets. For founders, VCs, clinicians, and builders in mental health AI, this is no longer a philosophical issue. It is a diligence issue, a governance issue, and a survival issue. Where do you think the viable model is? ‣ Covered benefit? ‣ Outcome-based contracting? ‣ Hybrid care? ‣ Reimbursement? ‣ Something else? I’d genuinely value your feedback here. Full essay in the first comment.
-
Scott Wallace, PhD Clinical Psychology reacted on thisWhen Getting Better Is Bad For Business: A Founder’s Dilemma Mental health AI cannot be built on subscription logic if recovery makes users leave. In most consumer software, success increases retention. The better the product, the longer users stay, the more revenue the company earns, and the stronger the business becomes. Mental health reverses that logic. A good intervention should increase agency, more agency should reduce dependence, and reduced dependence should reduce use. That is the tension I address in my new essay on mental health AI, business models, and the unit economics of recovery. So how do you make money when your product works so well that people need it less? The answer is not to design more addictive engagement loops, streaks, nudges, emotional dependency, or faux-therapeutic companionship. The answer is to build models where clinical success creates commercial value: ‣ population-level contracts, ‣ covered benefits, ‣ reimbursed care pathways, ‣ outcomes-based pricing, ‣ digital front-door models, ‣ prescription digital therapeutics, and ‣ clinically governed data assets. For founders, VCs, clinicians, and builders in mental health AI, this is no longer a philosophical issue. It is a diligence issue, a governance issue, and a survival issue. Where do you think the viable model is? ‣ Covered benefit? ‣ Outcome-based contracting? ‣ Hybrid care? ‣ Reimbursement? ‣ Something else? I’d genuinely value your feedback here. Full essay in the first comment.
-
Scott Wallace, PhD Clinical Psychology reacted on thisWhen Getting Better Is Bad For Business: A Founder’s Dilemma Mental health AI cannot be built on subscription logic if recovery makes users leave. In most consumer software, success increases retention. The better the product, the longer users stay, the more revenue the company earns, and the stronger the business becomes. Mental health reverses that logic. A good intervention should increase agency, more agency should reduce dependence, and reduced dependence should reduce use. That is the tension I address in my new essay on mental health AI, business models, and the unit economics of recovery. So how do you make money when your product works so well that people need it less? The answer is not to design more addictive engagement loops, streaks, nudges, emotional dependency, or faux-therapeutic companionship. The answer is to build models where clinical success creates commercial value: ‣ population-level contracts, ‣ covered benefits, ‣ reimbursed care pathways, ‣ outcomes-based pricing, ‣ digital front-door models, ‣ prescription digital therapeutics, and ‣ clinically governed data assets. For founders, VCs, clinicians, and builders in mental health AI, this is no longer a philosophical issue. It is a diligence issue, a governance issue, and a survival issue. Where do you think the viable model is? ‣ Covered benefit? ‣ Outcome-based contracting? ‣ Hybrid care? ‣ Reimbursement? ‣ Something else? I’d genuinely value your feedback here. Full essay in the first comment.
-
Scott Wallace, PhD Clinical Psychology reacted on thisWhen Getting Better Is Bad For Business: A Founder’s Dilemma Mental health AI cannot be built on subscription logic if recovery makes users leave. In most consumer software, success increases retention. The better the product, the longer users stay, the more revenue the company earns, and the stronger the business becomes. Mental health reverses that logic. A good intervention should increase agency, more agency should reduce dependence, and reduced dependence should reduce use. That is the tension I address in my new essay on mental health AI, business models, and the unit economics of recovery. So how do you make money when your product works so well that people need it less? The answer is not to design more addictive engagement loops, streaks, nudges, emotional dependency, or faux-therapeutic companionship. The answer is to build models where clinical success creates commercial value: ‣ population-level contracts, ‣ covered benefits, ‣ reimbursed care pathways, ‣ outcomes-based pricing, ‣ digital front-door models, ‣ prescription digital therapeutics, and ‣ clinically governed data assets. For founders, VCs, clinicians, and builders in mental health AI, this is no longer a philosophical issue. It is a diligence issue, a governance issue, and a survival issue. Where do you think the viable model is? ‣ Covered benefit? ‣ Outcome-based contracting? ‣ Hybrid care? ‣ Reimbursement? ‣ Something else? I’d genuinely value your feedback here. Full essay in the first comment.
-
Scott Wallace, PhD Clinical Psychology reacted on thisWhen Getting Better Is Bad For Business: A Founder’s Dilemma Mental health AI cannot be built on subscription logic if recovery makes users leave. In most consumer software, success increases retention. The better the product, the longer users stay, the more revenue the company earns, and the stronger the business becomes. Mental health reverses that logic. A good intervention should increase agency, more agency should reduce dependence, and reduced dependence should reduce use. That is the tension I address in my new essay on mental health AI, business models, and the unit economics of recovery. So how do you make money when your product works so well that people need it less? The answer is not to design more addictive engagement loops, streaks, nudges, emotional dependency, or faux-therapeutic companionship. The answer is to build models where clinical success creates commercial value: ‣ population-level contracts, ‣ covered benefits, ‣ reimbursed care pathways, ‣ outcomes-based pricing, ‣ digital front-door models, ‣ prescription digital therapeutics, and ‣ clinically governed data assets. For founders, VCs, clinicians, and builders in mental health AI, this is no longer a philosophical issue. It is a diligence issue, a governance issue, and a survival issue. Where do you think the viable model is? ‣ Covered benefit? ‣ Outcome-based contracting? ‣ Hybrid care? ‣ Reimbursement? ‣ Something else? I’d genuinely value your feedback here. Full essay in the first comment.
-
Scott Wallace, PhD Clinical Psychology reacted on thisWhen Getting Better Is Bad For Business: A Founder’s Dilemma Mental health AI cannot be built on subscription logic if recovery makes users leave. In most consumer software, success increases retention. The better the product, the longer users stay, the more revenue the company earns, and the stronger the business becomes. Mental health reverses that logic. A good intervention should increase agency, more agency should reduce dependence, and reduced dependence should reduce use. That is the tension I address in my new essay on mental health AI, business models, and the unit economics of recovery. So how do you make money when your product works so well that people need it less? The answer is not to design more addictive engagement loops, streaks, nudges, emotional dependency, or faux-therapeutic companionship. The answer is to build models where clinical success creates commercial value: ‣ population-level contracts, ‣ covered benefits, ‣ reimbursed care pathways, ‣ outcomes-based pricing, ‣ digital front-door models, ‣ prescription digital therapeutics, and ‣ clinically governed data assets. For founders, VCs, clinicians, and builders in mental health AI, this is no longer a philosophical issue. It is a diligence issue, a governance issue, and a survival issue. Where do you think the viable model is? ‣ Covered benefit? ‣ Outcome-based contracting? ‣ Hybrid care? ‣ Reimbursement? ‣ Something else? I’d genuinely value your feedback here. Full essay in the first comment.
-
Scott Wallace, PhD Clinical Psychology reacted on thisWhen Getting Better Is Bad For Business: A Founder’s Dilemma Mental health AI cannot be built on subscription logic if recovery makes users leave. In most consumer software, success increases retention. The better the product, the longer users stay, the more revenue the company earns, and the stronger the business becomes. Mental health reverses that logic. A good intervention should increase agency, more agency should reduce dependence, and reduced dependence should reduce use. That is the tension I address in my new essay on mental health AI, business models, and the unit economics of recovery. So how do you make money when your product works so well that people need it less? The answer is not to design more addictive engagement loops, streaks, nudges, emotional dependency, or faux-therapeutic companionship. The answer is to build models where clinical success creates commercial value: ‣ population-level contracts, ‣ covered benefits, ‣ reimbursed care pathways, ‣ outcomes-based pricing, ‣ digital front-door models, ‣ prescription digital therapeutics, and ‣ clinically governed data assets. For founders, VCs, clinicians, and builders in mental health AI, this is no longer a philosophical issue. It is a diligence issue, a governance issue, and a survival issue. Where do you think the viable model is? ‣ Covered benefit? ‣ Outcome-based contracting? ‣ Hybrid care? ‣ Reimbursement? ‣ Something else? I’d genuinely value your feedback here. Full essay in the first comment.
-
Scott Wallace, PhD Clinical Psychology reacted on thisWhen Getting Better Is Bad For Business: A Founder’s Dilemma Mental health AI cannot be built on subscription logic if recovery makes users leave. In most consumer software, success increases retention. The better the product, the longer users stay, the more revenue the company earns, and the stronger the business becomes. Mental health reverses that logic. A good intervention should increase agency, more agency should reduce dependence, and reduced dependence should reduce use. That is the tension I address in my new essay on mental health AI, business models, and the unit economics of recovery. So how do you make money when your product works so well that people need it less? The answer is not to design more addictive engagement loops, streaks, nudges, emotional dependency, or faux-therapeutic companionship. The answer is to build models where clinical success creates commercial value: ‣ population-level contracts, ‣ covered benefits, ‣ reimbursed care pathways, ‣ outcomes-based pricing, ‣ digital front-door models, ‣ prescription digital therapeutics, and ‣ clinically governed data assets. For founders, VCs, clinicians, and builders in mental health AI, this is no longer a philosophical issue. It is a diligence issue, a governance issue, and a survival issue. Where do you think the viable model is? ‣ Covered benefit? ‣ Outcome-based contracting? ‣ Hybrid care? ‣ Reimbursement? ‣ Something else? I’d genuinely value your feedback here. Full essay in the first comment.
Experience & Education
View Scott’s full experience
See their title, tenure and more.
or
Publications
-
Depression: What It Is and How To Cope With It
TELUS
A psycho-educational workbook written to help individuals understand depression and develop effective management strategies using a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) framework. Suitable for employees, family members, change agents, and coaches. 250,000 copies in print (including 90,000 distributed to all 3M employees worldwide).
-
Embracing Change: A Guide for Employees and Family Members
TELUS
This workbook was written to assist employees and family members during periods of workplace transitions such as downsizing or restructuring. It serves as a companion resource for change agents, coaches, and organizational leaders, working in tandem with the "Supporting the People Side of Change" guidebook for leaders, managers, and supervisors. Over 250000 copies sold (90,000 copies to all 3M employees worldwide).
-
Guiding Change: A Workbook for Leaders To Support the People Side of Change
TELUS
This practical workbook was designed to equip leaders, managers, and supervisors with the tools and insights necessary to effectively support their teams during times of workplace change, such as downsizing, restructuring, or organizational shifts. As a companion resource to the "Embrace Change: A Practical Workbook for Employees and Families," this guide emphasizes the critical role leaders play in fostering a positive and supportive environment.
-
The Comfort Zone (Employee Stress Management)
Telus
This CBT-based self-study psychoeducational workbook was written for employees, family members, change agents, and coaches. It introduces the seven key principles of stress management encapsulated in the COMFORT acronym. 250,000 copies in print (including 90,000 distributed to all 3M employees worldwide).
-
Social phobia and positive social events: The price of success.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology 106(3), 416–424
See publicationPatients with generalized social phobia (N = 32; 16 men, 16 women) and nonclinical control participants (N = 32; 16 men, 16 women) took part in a social interaction that was manipulated to be successful or unsuccessful. Participants rated their ability, perceptions of others' standards, social goals, and emotional responses before and after the interactions. As predicted, the successful social interaction produced a somewhat negative response in patients with social phobia. Social success led…
Patients with generalized social phobia (N = 32; 16 men, 16 women) and nonclinical control participants (N = 32; 16 men, 16 women) took part in a social interaction that was manipulated to be successful or unsuccessful. Participants rated their ability, perceptions of others' standards, social goals, and emotional responses before and after the interactions. As predicted, the successful social interaction produced a somewhat negative response in patients with social phobia. Social success led to self-protective social goals, negative emotional states and perceptions that others would expect more in future interactions. These results indicate that positive social events may not be processed in a way that leads to a revision of negative self- and social judgments in patients with social phobia.
-
Social anxiety and standard setting following social success or failure
Cognitive Therapy and Research volume 19, pages613–631
See publicationSocially anxious and nonanxious men participated in a “practice” interaction with an experimental assistant, ostensibly in preparation for a second interaction with another student. The success of the practice interaction was varied by manipulating the assistant's behavior and the experimenter's feedback about the subject's performance. Subjects then rated their perceived social ability (i.e., self-efficacy), their personal standard, and their perception of others' standards for evaluating…
Socially anxious and nonanxious men participated in a “practice” interaction with an experimental assistant, ostensibly in preparation for a second interaction with another student. The success of the practice interaction was varied by manipulating the assistant's behavior and the experimenter's feedback about the subject's performance. Subjects then rated their perceived social ability (i.e., self-efficacy), their personal standard, and their perception of others' standards for evaluating their social performance for an upcoming interaction. Nonanxious men expected their ability to match or exceed both their own and others' standards of evaluation in all feedback conditions. Socially anxious men, on the other hand, believed their ability would fall short of what others expected in all three conditions. Unlike nonanxious men, socially anxious men who experienced a successful social interaction believed others would expect more from them in upcoming interactions than did anxious men who experienced social failure.
-
Social phobia and social appraisal in successful and unsuccessful social interactions
Behaviour Research and Therapy Volume 33, Issue 5
See publication32 generalized social phobic outpatients and 32 matched nonclinical control subjects participated in a dyadic ‘getting acquainted’ interaction with an experimental assistant who engaged in either positive or negative social behavior. The accuracy of social phobics' and control subjects' perceptions of themselves and their partners were compared in the two conditions. Relative to observers' ratings, the social phobics displayed a negative bias in their appraisals of some, but not all, aspects of…
32 generalized social phobic outpatients and 32 matched nonclinical control subjects participated in a dyadic ‘getting acquainted’ interaction with an experimental assistant who engaged in either positive or negative social behavior. The accuracy of social phobics' and control subjects' perceptions of themselves and their partners were compared in the two conditions. Relative to observers' ratings, the social phobics displayed a negative bias in their appraisals of some, but not all, aspects of their social performance. These results suggested that social phobics may have particular difficulty gauging the nonverbal aspects of their social behavior. The phobics discounted their social competence to the same extent in the positive interaction, where their behavior was more skilful, as in the negative interaction. The social phobics were also less accurate than nonclinical controls in their appraisals of their partners, however, these phobic subjects displayed a positive bias when appraising their partner's performance.
-
Perfectionism in an interpersonal context: A self-regulation analysis of dysphoria and social anxiety
Cognitive Therapy and Research 18, pages297–316
See publicationThis study examined perfectionism and standard-setting within a self-regulation framework and systematically compared the roles of both factors in dysphoria and social anxiety. Four groups of subjects representing all combinations of social anxiety and dysphoria completed measures of self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. They then rated three aspects of self-regulation (standard-setting, frequency of self-appraisal, and self-efficacy) in the context of a social task. Socially…
This study examined perfectionism and standard-setting within a self-regulation framework and systematically compared the roles of both factors in dysphoria and social anxiety. Four groups of subjects representing all combinations of social anxiety and dysphoria completed measures of self-oriented and socially prescribed perfectionism. They then rated three aspects of self-regulation (standard-setting, frequency of self-appraisal, and self-efficacy) in the context of a social task. Socially prescribed perfectionism was associated with frequent self-appraisal during the interaction, but not with standard-setting. Self-oriented perfectionism was associated with establishing goals that exceeded one's perceived social ability and with importance of meeting personal goals. The extent to which either type of perfectionism was associated with dysphoria or social anxiety was dependent on social self-efficacy.
-
A comparison of social standards and perceived ability in anxious and nonanxious men
Cognitive Therapy and Research 15, pages237–254
See publicationThis study examined the discrepancy between self-established standards and self-efficacy in social situations. Socially anxious and nonanxious men rated a series of standards for judging the adequacy of their performance in an upcoming social interaction; subjects also rated their social self-efficacy, or perceived ability to handle the interaction. Nonanxious subjects expected their ability to equal or exceed all standards of evaluation. Anxious subjects expected their ability to equal that of…
This study examined the discrepancy between self-established standards and self-efficacy in social situations. Socially anxious and nonanxious men rated a series of standards for judging the adequacy of their performance in an upcoming social interaction; subjects also rated their social self-efficacy, or perceived ability to handle the interaction. Nonanxious subjects expected their ability to equal or exceed all standards of evaluation. Anxious subjects expected their ability to equal that of the average subject and also believed their performance would match their personal standard. However, anxious subjects believed their social behavior would fall short of what they believed the experimenter expected of them. No support was found for the idea that socially anxious men establish perfectionistic standards. Rather, they believed that others held standards for them that they could not achieve. The results are congruent with cognitive theories of social anxiety.
-
Social standards and social withdrawal
Cognitive Therapy and Research volume 15, pages85–100
See publicationThis study examined the effects of social standards on withdrawal from social interactions. Subjects with high or low perceptions of their social ability were provided with either a high, a low, or no social standard prior to an interaction. High-efficacy subjects persisted in the interaction when they could meet the standard and terminated the interaction when they could not. Low-efficacy subjects, on the other hand, withdrew from the interaction whether they matched the social standard or…
This study examined the effects of social standards on withdrawal from social interactions. Subjects with high or low perceptions of their social ability were provided with either a high, a low, or no social standard prior to an interaction. High-efficacy subjects persisted in the interaction when they could meet the standard and terminated the interaction when they could not. Low-efficacy subjects, on the other hand, withdrew from the interaction whether they matched the social standard or not. For high-efficacy individuals, these results were congruent with theories of social cognition, which emphasize discrepancies between standards and perceived ability. For low-efficacy individuals, a sense of goal attainment was not sufficient to overcome their habitual social withdrawal. Low-efficacy subjects recognized when they did or did not meet the social standard, but perceived themselves to lack control over the interaction. These subjects appeared to believe others held nonarticulated expectations for them that they were unable to meet.
Recommendations received
-
LinkedIn User
5 people have recommended Scott
Join now to viewWebsites
Other similar profiles
Explore more posts
Explore collaborative articles
We’re unlocking community knowledge in a new way. Experts add insights directly into each article, started with the help of AI.
Explore More