Cited by 222Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMental Health Treatment and AccessDigital Mental Health Interventions

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 10‐years of practice‐based evidence

Open access
Wakefield, Sarah, Kellett, Stephen, Simmonds‐Buckley, Melanie, Stockton, Daniel, Bradbury, Abigail, Delgadillo, Jaime·2021·British Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

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.

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 · 10.1111/bjc.12259

Cites

92 of 92 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?

  • The effect size for mean changes in anxiety from baseline to final for both Pragmatic and Value-based algorithm groups were larger than those seen in a meta-analysis of outcomes from a real-world evidence-based treatment program for anxiety (1.13 and 1.08 for this article; 0.88 from the meta-analysis).

    “The effect size for mean changes in anxiety from baseline to final for both Pragmatic and Value-based algorithm groups were larger than those seen in a meta-analysis of outcomes from a real-world evidence-based treatment program for anxiety (1.13 and 1.08 for this article; 0.88 from the meta-analysis).50”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Clarkson, P., Giebel, C. M., Challis, D., Duthie, P., Barrett, A., & Lambert, H. (2016). Outcomes from a pilot psychological therapies service for UK military veterans. Nursing Open, 3, 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2. · DOI
  2. Roth, A. D., & Fonagy, P. (2005). What works for whom: A critical review of psychotherapy research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wakefield, S., Kellett, S., Simmonds‐Buckley, M., Stockton, D., Bradbury, A., & Delgadillo, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Kellett, Stephen
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-06-23
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
1-37
ISSN
  • 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8260
OpenAlex
W3038066391
Cited by
222
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, psychotherapy, depression, anxiety, dissemination of evidence-based treatment, access to mental health care, treatment effect size, functional disability, follow-up support, relapse prevention, dropout
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Humans, Time Factors, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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