Cited by 26Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

The effectiveness of brief cognitive analytic therapy for anxiety and depression: A quasi‐experimental case—control study

Open access
Wakefield, Sarah, Delgadillo, Jaime, Kellett, Stephen, White, Stephen, Hepple, Jason·2021·British Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the effectiveness of an 8‐session cognitive analytic therapy (CAT) protocol for patients with anxiety and depression in the context of relational problems, personality disorder traits, or histories of adverse childhood experiences and then to compare outcomes with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Methods: The study was conducted in a single Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service and used sessional outcome monitoring. Propensity score matching was used to derive equivalent CAT ( N = 76) and CBT ( N = 73) samples through matching intake characteristics. Longitudinal multilevel modelling (LMLM) compared patterns of symptomatic change over time between the two therapies. Results: LMLM found no significant differences between CAT and CBT in depression, anxiety, and functional impairment outcomes and showed similar symptom change trajectories. Small between‐therapy post‐treatment effects and medium‐to‐large within‐therapy effects were found. CAT patients attended significantly more sessions, and the CAT dropout rate was significantly lower. Conclusions: Brief CAT appears acceptable and effective for patients with anxiety and depression in the context of complex relational problems when delivered within the high intensity tier of an IAPT service. The potential added value of CAT in IAPT services is discussed. Practitioner points: Practitioners (under appropriate supervision) could use 8‐session CAT when treating patients with anxiety and depression in the context of clinical complexity. The 8‐session CAT model holds organizational promise in IAPT services. Brief CAT interventions should retain theoretical integrity.

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.12278

Cites

50 of 52 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?

  • Cognitive analytic therapy yielded favourable results in managing mood conditions in the context of personality disorders.

    “Also, CAT yielded favourable results in managing mood conditions in the context of personality disorders.12”

    From A randomized controlled trial of cognitive analytic versus compassion-focused therapy for PTSD in Iran-Iraq War Veterans. (2024) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Abstract (page unavailable) reports favourable outcomes for anxiety and depression after CAT in patients selected partly for personality disorder traits. However, the Study limitations section (page unavailable) says no formal diagnostic methods or measures of those traits were used. The findings therefore do not establish outcomes specifically for patients with diagnosed personality disorders. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wakefield, S., Delgadillo, J., Kellett, S., White, S., & Hepple, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Somerset Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Kellett, Stephen
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-01-17
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
194-211
ISSN
  • 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8260
OpenAlex
W3122877156
Cited by
26
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3
FWCI
3.42
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 › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
cognitive analytic therapy, brief psychotherapy, anxiety, depression, cognitive behavioral therapy, Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, adverse childhood experiences, personality disorder traits, relationship problems, treatment discontinuation, functional disability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Case-Control Studies, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Propensity Score, Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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