Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 10‐years of practice‐based evidence
S Wakefield, S Kellett… - British Journal of …, 2021 - Wiley Online Library
S Wakefield, S Kellett, M Simmonds‐Buckley, D Stockton, A Bradbury, J Delgadillo
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2021•Wiley Online LibraryObjectives Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) is a national‐level
dissemination programme for provision of evidence‐based psychological treatments for
anxiety and depression in the United Kingdom. This paper sought to review and meta‐
analyse practice‐based evidence arising from the programme. Design A pre‐registered
(CRD42018114796) systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods A random effects meta‐
analysis was performed only on the practice‐based IAPT studies (ie excluding the clinical …
dissemination programme for provision of evidence‐based psychological treatments for
anxiety and depression in the United Kingdom. This paper sought to review and meta‐
analyse practice‐based evidence arising from the programme. Design A pre‐registered
(CRD42018114796) systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods A random effects meta‐
analysis was performed only on the practice‐based IAPT studies (ie excluding the clinical …
Objectives
Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) is a national‐level dissemination programme for provision of evidence‐based psychological treatments for anxiety and depression in the United Kingdom. This paper sought to review and meta‐analyse practice‐based evidence arising from the programme.
Design
A pre‐registered (CRD42018114796) systematic review and meta‐analysis.
Methods
A random effects meta‐analysis was performed only on the practice‐based IAPT studies (i.e. excluding the clinical trials). Subgroup analyses examined the potential influence of particular methodologies, treatments, populations, and target conditions. Sensitivity analyses investigated potential sources of heterogeneity and bias.
Results
The systematic review identified N = 60 studies, with N = 47 studies suitable for meta‐analysis. The primary meta‐analysis showed large pre‐post treatment effect sizes for depression (d = 0.87, 95% CI [0.78–0.96], p < .0001) and anxiety (d = 0.88, 95% CI [0.79–0.97], p < .0001), and a moderate effect on functional impairment (d = 0.55, 95% CI [0.48–0.61], p < .0001). The methodological features of studies influenced ESs (e.g., such as whether intention‐to‐treat or completer analyses were employed).
Conclusions
Current evidence suggests that IAPT enables access to broadly effective evidence‐based psychological therapies for large numbers of patients. The limitations of the review and the clinical and methodological implications are discussed.
Practitioner points
- IAPT interventions are associated with large pre‐post treatment effect sizes in depression and anxiety measures.
- IAPT interventions are associated with moderate treatment effect sizes with regards to work and social adjustment.
- A reduction in dropout and also the prevention of post‐treatment relapse via the offer of follow‐up support are important areas for future development.
Wiley Online Library以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果