Cited by 45Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMental Health Treatment and Access

Psychological interventions for anxiety in adult primary care patients: a review and recommendations for future research

Open access
Shepardson, Robyn L., Buchholz, Laura J., Weisberg, Risa B., Funderburk, Jennifer S.·2018·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

Anxiety symptoms are prevalent in primary care, yet treatment rates are low. The integration of behavioral health providers into primary care via the Primary Care Behavioral Health (PCBH) model offers a promising way to improve treatment options by adding a team member with the necessary skillset to deliver evidence-based psychological interventions for anxiety. We conducted a narrative review of psychological interventions for anxiety applied within adult primary care settings (k = 44) to update the literature and evaluate the fit of existing interventions with the PCBH model. The majority of studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 70.5%). Most interventions utilized cognitive-behavioral therapy (68.2%) and were delivered individually, face-to-face (52.3%). Overall, 65.9% of interventions (58.6% of RCTs, 91.7% of pre-post) were effective in reducing anxiety symptoms, and 83.3% maintained the gains at follow-up. Although it is encouraging that most interventions significantly reduced anxiety, their longer formats (i.e., number and duration of sessions) and narrow symptom targets make translation into practice difficult. Methodological limitations of the research included homogenous samples, failure to report key procedural details, pre-post designs, and restrictive eligibility criteria. We offer recommendations to guide future research to improve the likelihood of successful translation of anxiety interventions into clinical practice.

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.janxdis.2017.12.004

Cites

123 of 123 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Behavioral health providers need brief behavioral anxiety interventions that are feasible within PCBH and can accommodate the full range of anxiety presentations in severity, disorder, and comorbidities.

    “To ease implementation to maximize uptake in routine care (Cully et al. 2023), BHPs need brief behavioral anxiety interventions that are feasible within PCBH and can accommodate the full range of anxiety presentations in terms of symptom severity, disorder, and comorbidities (Seekles et al., 2013; Shepardson et al., 2018).”

    From Brief modular anxiety intervention for primary care: Hybrid I pilot randomized controlled trial of feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and implementation potential (2024) · cites this paper as Shepardson et al., 2018

    The Conclusion calls for brief, PCBH-compatible interventions accommodating varied anxiety presentations, from subthreshold through mild and moderate severity, with or without comorbid depression. The citing sentence overextends this to the full range of severity and comorbidities: the Introduction says BHPs may refer patients with severe or long-standing symptoms to specialty care, and the Conclusion specifies depression rather than comorbidities generally. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Although numerous anxiety intervention protocols have been tested in IPC settings, the majority appear to have limited utility for IPC practice due to requiring more than six visits, using visit durations of 31-120 minutes, and/or having narrow focus targeting one specific anxiety diagnosis.

    “Although numerous anxiety intervention protocols have been tested in IPC settings (see Shepardson et al., 2018 for a review), including CBT and Problem-Solving interventions, the majority appear to have limited utility for IPC practice due to requiring more than six visits, using visit durations of 31-120 minutes, and/or having narrow focus targeting one specific anxiety diagnosis.”

    From Barriers to and Facilitators of Using Evidence-Based, Cognitive–Behavioral Anxiety Interventions in Integrated Primary Care Practice (2023) · cites this paper as Shepardson et al., 2018

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many anxiety interventions have been examined in primary care.

    “While many anxiety interventions have been examined in primary care (Shepardson et al., 2018), most have a narrow focus (e.g., on a single disorder), cannot accommodate comorbid depression, and/or are not feasible due to high number or duration of sessions.”
  • Most anxiety interventions examined in primary care are not feasible because of high number or duration of sessions.

    “While many anxiety interventions have been examined in primary care (Shepardson et al., 2018), most have a narrow focus (e.g., on a single disorder), cannot accommodate comorbid depression, and/or are not feasible due to high number or duration of sessions.”
  • Most anxiety interventions examined in primary care cannot accommodate comorbid depression.

    “While many anxiety interventions have been examined in primary care (Shepardson et al., 2018), most have a narrow focus (e.g., on a single disorder), cannot accommodate comorbid depression, and/or are not feasible due to high number or duration of sessions.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shepardson, R. L., Buchholz, L. J., Weisberg, R. B., & Funderburk, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Syracuse VA Medical Center (US)
  • Buffalo VA Medical Center (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Rochester Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Shepardson, Robyn L.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
54
Pages
71-86
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2781486643
Cited by
44
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (IK2 HX002107)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
anxiety disorders, psychological intervention, primary care, cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral health integration, medication adherence, intervention dissemination, follow-up maintenance, methodological limitations
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Primary Health Care, 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