ArticleBMJ open2024
Estimating the effectiveness of an enhanced 'Improving Access to Psychological Therapies' (IAPT) service addressing the wider determinants of mental health: a real-world evaluation.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brief Group Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Non-Underweight Eating Disorders: Feasibility and Preliminary Effectiveness.The International journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- The bi-directional influence of social functioning and mental health symptoms during psychological treatment: A cross-lagged analysis in young adults.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAddressing the wider determinants of mental health alongside psychological therapy could improve mental health service outcomes and population mental health.
objectivesTo estimate the effectiveness of an enhanced 'Improving Access to Psychological Therapies' (IAPT) mental health service compared with traditional IAPT in England. Alongside traditional therapy treatment, the enhanced service included well-being support and community service links.
designA real-world evaluation using IAPT's electronic health records.
settingThree National Health Service IAPT services in England.
participantsData from 17 642 service users classified as having a case of depression and/or anxiety at baseline.
interventionWe compared the enhanced IAPT service (intervention) to an IAPT service in a different region providing traditional treatment only (geographical control), and the IAPT service with traditional treatment before additional support was introduced (historical control). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) Depression Scale (score range: 0-27) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) Anxiety Scale (score range: 0-21); for both, lower scores indicate better mental health. Propensity scores were used to estimate inverse probability of treatment weights, subsequently used in mixed effects regression models.
resultsSmall improvements (mean, 95% CI) were observed for PHQ-9 (depression) (-0.21 to -0.32 to -0.09) and GAD-7 (anxiety) (-0.23 to -0.34 to -0.13) scores in the intervention group compared with the historical control. There was little evidence of statistically significant differences between intervention control and geographical control.
conclusionsEmbedding additional health and well-being (H&W) support into standard IAPT services may lead to improved mental health outcomes. However, the lack of improved outcomes compared with the geographical control may instead reflect a more general improvement to the intervention IAPT service. It is not clear from our findings whether an IAPT service with additional H&W support is clinically superior to traditional IAPT models.
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.