Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33613689›Full record

ArticleCognitive behaviour therapist2020

Improvement in IAPT outcomes over time: are they driven by changes in clinical practice?

Rob Saunders, John Cape, Judy Leibowitz, Elisa Aguirre, Renuka Jena, Mirko Cirkovic, Jon Wheatley, Nicole Main, Stephen Pilling, Joshua E J Buckman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive behaviour therapist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rob SaundersCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7077-8729
John CapeCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.
Judy LeibowitziCope - Camden and Islington Psychological Therapies Services, Camden & Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Elisa AguirreRedbridge Talking Therapies Service - North East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Renuka JenaWaltham Forest IAPT and Redbridge Talking Therapies Service - North East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mirko CirkovicTalk Changes: City & Hackney IAPT Service, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jon WheatleyTalk Changes: City & Hackney IAPT Service, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Nicole MainLet's Talk IAPT - Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Psychological Therapies Service, Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust, London, UK.
Stephen PillingCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.
Joshua E J BuckmanCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.
University College London · GBHomerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBNorth East London NHS Foundation Trust · GBBarnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust · GBCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment outcomes across Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in England have improved year-on-year, with the national average proportion of patients in recovery at the end of treatment now exceeding the 50% target. This is despite the number of referrals and numbers of treated patients also increasing year-on-year, suggesting that services have evolved local practices and treatment delivery to meet needs whilst improving performance. This study explores whether there have been changes in clinical practice with regard to: (1) the number of sessions and length of treatments; (2) the number of cancellations and non-attendance; and (3) the recording of problem descriptor information, and the association with treatment outcomes in IAPT. Routinely collected data from seven IAPT services involved in the North and Central East London (NCEL) IAPT Service Improvement and Research Network (SIRN) were brought together to form a dataset of nearly 88,000 patients who completed a course of IAPT treatment. Results showed that there was a slight increase in the average number of sessions, and decreases in the length of time in treatment, as well as decreases in both the number of non-attended appointments and the use of inappropriate problem descriptors. These findings highlight a number of areas where potentially small changes to clinical practice may have had positive effects on patient outcomes. The value of using IAPT data to inform service improvement evaluations is discussed. KEY LEARNING

aims(1)How changes to treatment-delivery factors are associated with IAPT patient outcomes.(2)The link between clinical practice and potential service performance.(3)How analysing routinely collected data can be used to inform service improvement.

Indexed as

assessmentdiagnosisIAPTpsychological therapytreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID33613689
PMCPMC7872157
OpenAlexW3034534593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.