SynthesisBMC family practice2021
Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare.
Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of mHealth interventions targeting physical activity, sedentary behaviour, sleep or nutrition on emotional, behavioural and eating disorders in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Pooled it
- Profiles of Quality of Outpatient Care Received Among Adolescents and Young Adults with Health Mental Disorders.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2026Article
- The Potential Role of Peer Support Workers in General Practice: Perspectives of Consumers, Carers, Peer Support Workers and General Practice Staff.Administration and policy in mental health · 2026Article
- Recruitment strategies and participant motivations in a digital randomized controlled trial for the prevention of anxiety disorders: the prevANS study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of a 5-Min Music Listening Intervention for State Anxiety Reduction in College Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Consumption patterns and factors associated with inappropriate prescribing of benzodiazepines in Primary Health Care settings.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Consumer Perspectives on Anxiety Management in Australian General Practice.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Australian Mental Health Consumers' Experiences of Service Engagement and Disengagement: A Descriptive Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental health conditions and are managed predominantly in primary care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological and pharmacological treatments in countries with universal healthcare, and investigated the influence of treatment provider on the efficacy of psychological treatment.
methodPubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched in April 2017 for controlled studies of evidence-based anxiety treatment in adults in primary care, published in English since 1997. Searches were repeated in April 2020. We synthesised results using a combination of meta-analysis and narrative methods. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects multi-level model to account for intercorrelation between effects contributed different treatment arms of the same study. Moderator variables were explored using meta-regression analyses.
resultsIn total, 19 articles (from an initial 2,247) reporting 18 studies were included. Meta-analysis including ten studies (n = 1,308) found a pooled effect size of g = 1.16 (95%CI = 0.63 - 1.69) for psychological treatment compared to waitlist control, and no significant effect compared to care as usual (p = .225). Substantial heterogeneity was present (I
conclusionsPsychological treatments for anxiety are effective in primary care and are more effective when provided by a specialist (psychologist or clinical psychologist) than a non-specialist (GP, nurse, trainee). However, non-specialists provide effective treatment compared with no care at all. Limited research into the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in primary care needs to be considered carefully by prescribers
trial registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42018050659.
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.