Cited by 124Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression in primary care: a meta-analysis

Twomey, Conal, O’Reilly, Gary, Byrne, Michael·2015·Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is increasingly being delivered in primary care, in a variety of delivery formats such as guided self-help CBT, telephone-based CBT, computerized CBT and standard, one-to-one CBT. However, the vast majority of research has focused on CBT in specialized services, and no previous meta-analysis has examined CBT's effectiveness across delivery formats in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of multi-modal CBT (i.e. CBT across delivery formats) for symptoms of anxiety and depression, in primary care. METHODS: A meta-analysis of CBT-focused RCTs, for symptoms of anxiety or depression, in primary care. The authors searched four databases. To be included, RCTs had to be set in primary care or have primary care participants. RESULTS: Twenty-nine RCTs were included in three separate meta-analyses. Results showed multi-modal CBT was more effective than no primary care treatment (d =0.59), and primary care treatment-as-usual (TAU) (d = 0.48) for anxiety and depression symptoms. Moreover, multi-modal CBT in addition to primary care TAU was shown to be more effective than primary care TAU for depression symptoms (no comparisons of this kind were available for anxiety) (d = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: The results from conducted meta-analyses indicate that multi-modal CBT is effective for anxiety and depression symptoms in primary care. Furthermore, based on CBT's economic viability, increasing the provision of CBT in primary care seems justified. Future research should examine if varying levels of qualification among primary care CBT practitioners impacts on the effectiveness of CBT in this setting.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/cmu060

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Twomey, C., O’Reilly, G., & Byrne, M.
Affiliations
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • Health Service Executive (IE)
Venue
Family Practice
Published
2014-09-22
Volume
32
Issue
1
Pages
3-15
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W1985634563
Cited by
123
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, anxiety, depression, primary care, guided self-help, treatment effectiveness, usual care, economic feasibility
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Depression, Humans, Primary Health Care, Models, Statistical, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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