Dynamic prediction of psychological treatment outcomes: development and validation of a prediction model using routinely collected symptom data
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders can be effectively treated with psychotherapy, but some patients do not respond well and require timely identification to prevent treatment failure. We aimed to develop and validate a dynamic model to predict psychological treatment outcomes, and to compare the model with currently used methods, including expected treatment response models and machine learning models. METHODS: In this prediction model development and validation study, we obtained data from two UK studies including patients who had accessed therapy via Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services managed by ten UK National Health Service (NHS) Trusts between March, 2012, and June, 2018, to predict treatment outcomes. In study 1, we used data on patient-reported depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 [PHQ-9]) and anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 [GAD-7]) symptom measures obtained on a session-by-session basis (Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust dataset; n=2317) to train the Oracle dynamic prediction model using iterative logistic regression analysis. The outcome of interest was reliable and clinically significant improvement in depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7) symptoms. The predictive accuracy of the model was assessed in an external test sample (Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust dataset; n=2036) using the area under the curve (AUC), positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs). In study 2, we retrained the Oracle algorithm using a multiservice sample (South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, North East London NHS Foundation Trust, Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust; n=42 992) and compared its performance with an expected treatment response model and five machine learning models (Bayesian updating algorithm, elastic net regularisation, extreme gradient boosting, support vector machine, and neural networks based on a multilayer perceptron algorithm) in an external test sample (Whittington Health NHS Trust; Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust; Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust; and Humber NHS Foundation Trust; n=30 026). FINDINGS: The Oracle algorithm trained using iterative logistic regressions generalised well to external test samples, explaining up to 47·3% of variability in treatment outcomes. Prediction accuracy was modest at session one (AUC 0·59 [95% CI 0·55-0·62], PPV 0·63, NPV 0·61), but improved over time, reaching high prediction accuracy (AUC 0·81 [0·77-0·86], PPV 0·79, NPV 0·69) as early as session seven. The performance of the Oracle model was similar to complex (eg, including patient profiling variables) and computationally intensive machine learning models (eg, neural networks based on a multilayer perceptron algorithm, extreme gradient boosting). Furthermore, the predictive accuracy of a more simple dynamic algorithm including only baseline and index-session scores was comparable to more complex algorithms that included additional predictors modelling sample-level and individual-level variability. Overall, the Oracle algorithm significantly outperformed the expected treatment response model (mean AUC 0·80 vs 0·70, p<0·0001]). INTERPRETATION: Dynamic prediction models using sparse and readily available symptom measures are capable of predicting psychotherapy outcomes with high accuracy. FUNDING: University of Sheffield.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Evaluative studies in applied settings are limited and primarily focus on predicting outcomes in care, not on improving provider-client fit from the start of care.
“Although predictive models show promise for improving healthcare access and quality,23 evaluative studies in applied settings are limited and primarily focus on predicting outcomes in care, not on improving provider-client fit from the start of care.24-26”
From Using Machine Learning to Match Clients and Therapy Providers: Evaluating Clinical Quality and Cost of Care (2025) · cites this paper as [25]
The Discussion describes a model that predicts psychological treatment outcomes using symptoms collected session by session, and says whether implementing it improves outcomes remains unclear. This supports the example of prediction during care, but the paper does not establish that evaluative studies in applied settings are limited or primarily neglect provider–client fit at the start of care. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910 · see citing works
Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Monahan, P. O., & Löwe, B. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004 · Cited by 4,741 · see citing works
Christodoulou, E., Ma, J., Collins, G. S., Steyerberg, E. W., Verbakel, J. Y., & Van Calster, B. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.004 · Cited by 2,119 · see citing works
Clark, D. M. (2011) · International Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.3109/09540261.2011.606803 · Cited by 699 · see citing works
Shimokawa, K., Lambert, M. J., & Smart, D. W. (2010) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0019247 · Cited by 657 · see citing works
Sudden gains during psychological treatments of anxiety and depression: A meta-analysis
Aderka, I. M., Nickerson, A., Bøe, H. J., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0026455 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Lutz, W., Rubel, J. A., Schwartz, B., Schilling, V., & Deisenhofer, A.-K. (2019) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2019.103438 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Self-citationDelgadillo, J., de Jong, K., Lucock, M., Lutz, W., Rubel, J., Gilbody, S., Ali, S., Aguirre, E., Appleton, M., Nevin, J., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30162-7 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Self-citationLynam, A. L., Dennis, J. M., Owen, K. R., Oram, R. A., Jones, A. G., Shields, B. M., & Ferrat, L. A. (2020) · Diagnostic and Prognostic Research · doi:10.1186/s41512-020-00075-2 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Beard, J. I. L., & Delgadillo, J. (2019) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.22931 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 27
- 1 Delgadillo J, Lutz W. A development pathway towards precision mental health care. JAMA Psychiatry 2020; 77: 889–90.
- 2 Lutz W, Martinovich Z, Howard KI. Patient profiling: an application of random coefficient regression models to depicting the response of a patient to outpatient psychotherapy. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999; 67: 571-77.
- 3 Finch AE, Lambert MJ, Schaalje BG. Psychotherapy quality control: the statistical generation of expected recovery curves for integration into an early warning system. Clin Psychol Psychother 2001; 8:231-42.
- 4 Howard KI, Moras K, Brill PL, Martinovich Z, Lutz W. Evaluation of psychotherapy. Efficacy, effectiveness, and patient progress. Am Psychol 1996; 51: 1059–64.
- 5 Krause MS, Howard KI, Lutz W. Exploring individual change. J Consult Clin Psychol 1998; 66: 838–45.
- 6 Garfield SL. Some problems associated with "validated" forms of psychotherapy. Clin Psychol Sci Pract 1996; 3: 218–29.
- 7 Lutz W, Leach C, Barkham M, et al. Predicting change for individual psychotherapy clients on the basis of their nearest neighbors. J Consult Clin Psychol 2005; 73: 904–13.
- 8 Saunders R, Cape J, Fearon P, Pilling S. Predicting treatment outcome in psychological treatment services by identifying latent profiles of patients. J Affect Disord 2016; 197: 107–15.
- 9 Delgadillo J, Moreea O, Lutz W. Different people respond differently to therapy: a demonstration using patient profiling and risk stratification. Behav Res Ther 2016; 79: 15–22.
- 10 Delgadillo J, Huey D, Bennett H, McMillan D. Case complexity as a guide for psychological treatment selection. J Consult Clin Psychol 2017; 85: 835–53.
- 11 Lambert MJ. Progress feedback and the OQ-system: the past and the future. Psychotherapy 2015; 52: 381–90.
- 12 Duncan BL. The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS): the heart and soul of change project. Can Psychol 2012; 53: 93–104.
- 17 Lambert MJ, Hansen NB, Finch AE. Patient-focused research: using patient outcome data to enhance treatment effects. J Consult Clin Psychol 2001; 69: 159–72.
- 20 Roth AD, Pilling S. Using an evidence-based methodology to identify the competences required to deliver effective cognitive and behavioural therapy for depression and anxiety disorders. Behav Cogn Psychother 2008; 36: 129–47.
- 22 Richards DA, Borglin G. Implementation of psychological therapies for anxiety and depression in routine practice: two year prospective cohort study. J Affect Disord 2011; 133: 51–60.
- 24 Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991; 59: 12–19.
- 25 Delgadillo J, McMillan D, Lucock M, Leach C, Ali S, Gilbody S. Early changes, attrition, and dose-response in low intensity psychological interventions. Br J Clin Psychol 2014; 53: 114-30.
- 26 Hsieh FY. Sample size tables for logistic regression. Stat Med 1989; 8: 795–802.
- 27 Robinson L, Kellett S, Delgadillo J. Dose-response patterns in low and high intensity cognitive behavioral therapy for common mental health problems. Depress Anxiety 2020; 37: 285–94.
- 28 Nagelkerke NJ. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 1991; 78: 691–92.
- 29 Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988; 240: 1285–93.
- 30 West M, Harrison J. Bayesian forecasting and dynamic models, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Springer, 2006.
- 31 Zou H, Hastie T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J R Stat Soc B 2005; 67: 301–20.
- 32 Chen T, Guestrin C. Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system. 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; San Fransisco, CA; Aug 13–17, 2016.
- 33 Platt J. Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and comparisons to regularized likelihood methods. Advances in Large Margin Classifiers 1999; 10: 61–74.
- 34 Fine TL. Feedforward neural network methodology, 3rd edn. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1999.
- 35 Bea d d asa predictor of depression and anxiety treatment outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Depress Anxiety 2019; 36: 866–78.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Predicting relapse or recurrence of depression: systematic review of prognostic models
Moriarty, A. S., Meader, N., Snell, K. I. E., Riley, R. D., Paton, L. W., Dawson, S., Hendon, J., Chew-Graham, C. A., Gilbody, S., Churchill, R., et al. (2022) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.2021.218 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Lee, J. L., Billovits, C., Chen, S.-Y., Wickham, R. E., Kocher, B., Chen, C. E., & Lungu, A. (2025) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2025.06.002 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bone, C., Simmonds-Buckley, M., Thwaites, R., Sandford, D., Merzhvynska, M., Rubel, J., Deisenhofer, A.-K., Lutz, W., & Delgadillo, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- University of Zurich (CH)
- Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (DE)
- Universität Trier (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Delgadillo, Jaime
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Digital Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-04
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e231-e240
- ISSN
- 2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3138321717
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 9.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- University of Sheffield
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Keywords
- dynamic prediction, psychotherapy outcome, depression, anxiety, Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, machine learning comparison, common mental disorders, PHQ-9, GAD-7, external validation, prediction accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Patient Health Questionnaire, Routinely Collected Health Data, Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, National Health Programs, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychotherapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult
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