ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2025
Access to psychological therapies amongst patients with a mental health diagnosis in primary care: a data linkage study.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Availability of psychological therapies and workforce participation of individuals with long-term mental health problems: a retrospective observational study.International journal of mental health systems · 2026Article
- Primary care consultation modality and acute mental health service use in adults.Nature. Mental health · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Psychotherapeutic Consultation at Work Compared to Care as Usual for Employees with Common Mental Disorders or Subthreshold Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial in Germany.Psychotherapy and psychosomatics · 2025Article
- Subtyping Service Receipt in Personality Disorder Services in South London: Observational Validation Study Using Latent Profile Analysis.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Article
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
Abstract
purposeSignificant numbers of people in England have fallen into a gap between primary care psychological therapies and specialist mental health services. We aim to examine pathways to care by looking at demographic variation in detection and referral to primary and secondary psychological services in south London.
methodsLongitudinal descriptive study using a record linkage between a primary care database (Lambeth DataNet) and a secondary care mental health database (CRIS). We extracted data on mental health diagnosis, prescriptions and episodes of care in mental health services for all patients of working age registered from 1 January 2008 to 1 March 2018 (pre-covid era).
resultsOf those with a mental disorder detected in primary care (n = 110,419; 26.8%); 33.7% (n = 37,253) received no treatment; 21.3% (n = 23,548) exclusively accessed psychological treatment within NHS Talking Therapies and 7.6% accessed secondary care psychological therapies. People from minoritised groups were more likely to be prescribed psychotropic medication as the only treatment offered compared to the White British group. Men, Black African and Asian groups were less likely to access NHS Talking Therapies. People with a personality disorder diagnosis had the highest prevalence and number of NHS Talking Therapies treatment episodes (48.0%, n = 960), a similar percentage (44.1%, n = 881) received secondary care psychology treatment.
conclusionOur study highlights marked inequalities in access to psychological therapies for men and people from some minoritised ethnic groups across primary and secondary care and how individuals with personality disorders are offered multiple short-term courses in NHS Talking Therapies even where this is not recommended treatment.
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.