Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37449486›Full record

ArticlePsychological medicine2023

Understanding the psychological therapy treatment outcomes for young adults who are not in education, employment, or training (NEET), moderators of outcomes, and what might be done to improve them.

Joshua E J Buckman, Joshua Stott, Nicole Main, Daniela M Antonie, Satwant Singh, Syed A Naqvi, Elisa Aguirre, Jon Wheatley, Mirko Cirkovic, Judy Leibowitz and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  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
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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Joshua E J BuckmanCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2281-0907
Joshua StottADAPT lab, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London, UK.
Nicole MainLet's Talk IAPT - Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Psychological Therapies Service, Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Mental Health Trust, London, UK.
Daniela M AntonieNewham Talking Therapies - East London NHS Foundation Trust, Vicarage Lane Health Centre, Stratford, London E15 4ES, UK.
Satwant SinghWaltham Forest Talking Therapies - North East London Foundation Trust, Thorne House, London E11 4HU, UK.
Syed A NaqviBarking & Dagenham and Havering IAPT Services - North East London Foundation Trust, Church Elm Lane Health Centre, Dagenham, Essex RM10 9RR, UK.
Elisa AguirreRedbridge Talking Therapies Service, North East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jon WheatleyTalk Changes: City & Hackney IAPT Service, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mirko CirkovicTalk Changes: City & Hackney IAPT Service, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Judy LeibowitziCope - Camden & Islington NHS Foundation Trust, St Pancras Hospital, London NW1 0PE, UK.
John CapeCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Stephen PillingCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Rob SaundersCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK.
Department of Health and Social Care · GBNorth East London NHS Foundation Trust · GBHomerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBBarnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust · GBEast London NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt Pancras Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 201292/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo determine: whether young adults (aged 18-24) not in education, employment or training (NEET) have different psychological treatment outcomes to other young adults; any socio-demographic or treatment-related moderators of differential outcomes; and whether service-level changes are associated with better outcomes for those who are NEET.

methodsA cohort was formed of 20 293 young adults treated with psychological therapies in eight Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services. Pre-treatment characteristics, outcomes, and moderators of differential outcomes were compared for those who were and were not NEET. Associations between outcomes and the following were assessed for those that were NEET: missing fewer sessions, attending more sessions, having a recorded diagnosis, and waiting fewer days between referral and starting treatment.

resultsThose who were NEET had worse outcomes: odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for reliable recovery = 0.68 (0.63-0.74), for deterioration = 1.41 (1.25-1.60), and for attrition = 1.31 (1.19-1.43). Ethnic minority participants that were NEET had better outcomes than those that were White and NEET. Living in deprived areas was associated with worse outcomes. The intensity of treatment (high or low) did not moderate outcomes, but having more sessions was associated with improved outcomes for those that were NEET: odds (per one-session increase) of reliable recovery = 1.10 (1.08-1.12), deterioration = 0.94 (0.91-0.98), and attrition = 0.68 (0.66-0.71).

conclusionsEarlier treatment, supporting those that are NEET to attend sessions, and in particular, offering them more sessions before ending treatment might be effective in improving clinical outcomes. Additional support when working with White young adults that are NEET and those in more deprived areas may also be important.

Indexed as

EthnicityUnemploymentEmploymentHumansMinority GroupsTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAnxiety disorderscommunity mental health servicesdepressive disorderpsychotherapy outcome researchyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID37449486
PMCPMC10235648
OpenAlexW3216299074

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.