ArticlePsychology and psychotherapy2026
Cognitive analytic therapy-guided self-help for depression: A mixed methods evaluation.
Article in Psychology and psychotherapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cognitive analytic therapy-guided self-help for depression: A mixed methods evaluation.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate cognitive analytic therapy-guided self-help (CAT-GSH) for depression in terms of outcomes and acceptability.
designA parallel mixed methods case series with session-by-session outcome measurement supplemented by patient and staff interviewing.
methodsFour psychological well-being practitioners (PWPs) delivered CAT-GSH to N = 11 patients in an NHS talking therapies service, and these patients were followed up at 1 month. Acceptability of CAT-GSH was assessed via treatment refusal and dropout rates, sessional attendance and qualitative interviewing of PWPs and patients. Outcomes were assessed by comparing group means at screening, termination and follow-up on sessional measures, calculating the case-by-case recovery rate and benchmarking against relevant research.
resultsAll 11 patients offered CAT-GSH accepted; one patient dropped out, all completers attended the full 6 sessions, and 7/10 were in reliable recovery at follow-up. Treatment gains were maintained over the follow-up period, and outcomes appeared equivalent when benchmarked against the evidence base. Patients found CAT-GSH to be a mostly acceptable intervention, and this was due to mood improvements, better recognition skills and implementation of 'exits'. CAT-GSH improved the diversity of the treatment offer for PWPs and provided professional development opportunities.
conclusionsCAT-GSH holds promise as a low-intensity treatment for depression, but clearly more controlled research is needed.
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.