Cited by 599Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving access to psychological therapy: Initial evaluation of two UK demonstration sites

Open access

Abstract

Recently the UK Government announced an unprecedented, large-scale initiative for Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) for depression and anxiety disorders. Prior to this development, the Department of Health established two pilot projects that aimed to collect valuable information to inform the national roll-out. Doncaster and Newham received additional funds to rapidly increase the availability of CBT-related interventions and to deploy them in new clinical services, operating on stepped-care principles, when appropriate. This article reports an evaluation of the new services (termed 'demonstration sites') during their first thirteen months of operation. A session-by-session outcome monitoring system achieved unusually high levels of pre to post-treatment data completeness. Large numbers of patients were treated, with low-intensity interventions (such as guided self-help) being particularly helpful for achieving high throughput. Clinical outcomes were broadly in line with expectation. 55-56% of patients who had attended at least twice (including the assessment interview) were classified as recovered when they left the services and 5% had improved their employment status. Treatment gains were largely maintained at 10 month follow-up. Opening the services to self-referral appeared to facilitate access for some groups that tend to be underrepresented in general practice referrals. Outcomes were comparable for the different ethnic groups who access the services. Issues for the further development of IAPT are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.brat.2009.07.010

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 23 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 598

Metadata

Authors
Clark, D. M., Layard, R., Smithies, R., Richards, D. A., Suckling, R., & Wright, B.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • East London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Clark, David M.
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-11
Volume
47
Issue
11
Pages
910-920
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1990798545
Cited by
599
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 41
FWCI
51.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (069777)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Economic and Social Research Council (RES-107-28-1001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, depression, anxiety disorders, cognitive behavioral therapy, stepped care, demonstration sites, guided self-help, self-referral, service evaluation, treatment outcomes, ethnic minority patients, employment effects, general practitioner referral
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, United Kingdom, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review