ReviewBJPsych open2026
Current treatment outcomes and care pathways for people with comorbid physical and mental health conditions using NHS Talking Therapies services in the UK: systematic review of quantitative studies.
Review in BJPsych open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2018, the UK government commissioned National Health Service Talking Therapies (NHS TT) services to provide integrated mental and physical health care for individuals with a long-term condition (LTC) and coexisting depression and/or anxiety. Nevertheless, evidence on the effectiveness of NHS TT in physical LTCs remains inconsistent.
aimsThis review aims to evaluate the impact of NHS TT on mental health outcomes among adults with physical LTCs.
methodWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative studies published between 2008 and 2024. We used several databases for the search, including Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, NHS Evidence, PsycINFO, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine and ProQuest. We combined terms related to NHS TT, LTCs and mental health outcomes to identify eligible studies. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study framework guided the development of the inclusion criteria. We employed the random-effects model for meta-analysis and assessed heterogeneity bias using the
resultsTwenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed a significant pre-post NHS TT intervention effect on reliable improvement (odds ratio 0.77, 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and reliable recovery (odds ratio 0.80, CI: 0.68-0.95). There were no significant differences in NHS TT accessibility (e.g. treatment engagement) between participants with and without LTCs (odds ratio 0.97, 95% CI: 0.82-1.14). However, heterogeneity between the studies was high (>90%).
conclusionsThe observed evidence provides reassurance for individuals with LTCs engaging with treatment; however, the association with post-treatment distress is still of concern. Furthermore, extensive and rigorous research is needed to strengthen and guide service development for individuals with LTCs, thereby improving effectiveness.
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.