Cited by 1,084Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health Treatment and Access

Stepped care in psychological therapies: access, effectiveness and efficiency: Narrative literature review

Open access
Bower, Peter, Gilbody, Simon·2005·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: There is a significant gap between the demand for psychological therapy services and the available supply. One proposal to overcome this problem is to increase efficiency of provision through the adoption of briefer ‘minimal interventions' within stepped care models. Aims: To examine the theoretical underpinnings of stepped care, together with the practicalities of the adoption of this system of care. Method: Narrative literature review. Results: The potential clinical and economic benefits of stepped care are dependent upon underlying assumptions of equivalence in terms of clinical outcomes, efficiency in terms of resource use and costs, and acceptability of ‘minimal interventions' to patients and therapists. Illustrative studies of these issues are considered. Conclusions: Although psychological services might benefit from the adoption of the stepped care model, a substantial research agenda needs to be fulfilled before a judgement can be made as to whether stepped care might be an efficient method of delivering psychological services.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.186.1.11

Cites

65 of 65 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?

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

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bower, P., & Gilbody, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Bower, Peter
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2005-01
Volume
186
Issue
1
Pages
11-17
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2160548159
Cited by
1,084
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 76 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 54
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
stepped care, psychotherapy, minimal intervention, brief intervention, access to mental health care, service supply and demand, treatment efficiency, cost-effectiveness, treatment acceptability, resource utilization (health care)
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Psychotherapy, 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