SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2026
Digital front door technologies to pre-assess people before assessment for NHS Talking Therapies [HTE10055]: early value assessment.
Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Digital front door technologies to pre-assess people before assessment for NHS Talking Therapies [HTE10055]: early value assessment.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
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
Background: NHS Talking Therapies for anxiety and depression is a service that provides people in England with psychological support. There are several referral routes into the service, digital front door technologies being the most recent addition. Aim: The aim of this National Institute for Health and Care Excellence early value assessment was to map available evidence, assess potential benefits and costs of NHS Talking Therapies referral pathways with and without digital front door technologies, and identify evidence gaps to help direct future data collection and further research. Methods: The External Assessment Group carried out a systematic literature review (December 2024) to gather evidence relating to Limbic Access (Limbic), Wysa Digital Referral Assistant (Wysa), Censeo Digital (Psyomics) and AskFirst (Sensely). Information was collected across four broad outcome categories: accuracy and acceptability, resource and system impact, patient-reported outcomes, and costs. All study types were eligible for inclusion in the systematic literature review, along with evidence provided by the manufacturers of digital front door technologies (via requests for information). In addition, the External Assessment Group interviewed and sent questionnaires to stakeholders, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Specialist Committee Members, and carried out exploratory analyses of costs and benefits. Results: Evidence was only available for two digital front door technologies: Limbic Access and Wysa Digital Referral Assistant. Literature meeting the systematic literature review eligibility criteria comprised two published peer-reviewed studies, six unpublished studies and five requests for information responses. The strongest evidence related to accessibility and overall satisfaction with Limbic Access. Results from one peer-reviewed study showed that Limbic Access increased the number of referrals to NHS Talking Therapies versus services that did not implement the technology (odds ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval 1.075 to 1.131); this included an increase in access for some minority groups [Asian (odds ratio = 1.29; confidence interval 1.163 to 1.422), Black (odds ratio = 1.35, confidence interval 1.183 to 1.551) and non-binary (odds ratio = 2.95; confidence interval 2.065 to 4.206)]. Overall satisfaction reported by users who completed the Limbic Access referral process was high (≥ 89%). Resource impact evidence was provided by one peer-reviewed study; results showed that Limbic Access reduced clinical assessment duration by 12.7 minutes. No relevant information on quality and accuracy was identified. Interviews and questionnaires: Respondents were positive about digital front door technologies, suggesting that these tools could lead to better quality and more accurate (1) pre-referral practices and (2) initial clinical assessments; however, experts were unable to clearly define quality or accuracy. Cost-effectiveness analyses: The External Assessment Group's exploratory economic analysis results suggested that the amount of clinical assessment time required to notionally offset the Limbic Access or Wysa Digital Referral Assistant licence cost was small (< 3 minutes). Limitations: Most published evidence was non-comparative. The strength of the evidence provided by the technology companies was difficult to assess due to limited detail. Conclusions: Further evidence is required to better understand the benefits and costs of digital front door technologies for NHS Talking Therapies. Future work: Evidence generation should focus on whether digital front door technologies improve the accuracy and quality of clinical assessments and their impact on resources throughout the referral pathway. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42025634844. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis Programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR171847) and is published in full in
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.