Cited by 154Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Improving access to psychological therapies: Phase IV prospective cohort study

Richards, David A., Suckling, Rupert·2009·British Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Objectives. To determine the effects of implementing stepped care evidence‐based psychological treatments for anxiety and depression in routine practice using a collaborative care implementation model. Design. Observational prospective cohort study/Phase IV field trial. Methods. We collected data on depression and anxiety from a prospective cohort of 3,994 consecutive patients referred to the UK Improving Access to Psychological Therapies demonstration site in Doncaster for 12 months from August 2006 using PHQ‐9 and GAD‐7. We collected demographic and process information including the type and methods of treatments received. We calculated effect sizes, remission, and recovery rates for patients competing treatment and those who dropped out or were considered to be unsuitable. Results. Two thousand seven hundred and ninety‐five patients received an assessment, out of which 2,017 received two or more appointments. Out of these, 869 had completed treatment by the census date, 743 remained in treatment, 319 had dropped out, and 85 had been found to be unsuitable. Pre–post treatment effect sizes for anxiety and depression in those patients completing treatment were 1.39 and 1.41, respectively, with post‐treatment relative risks of depression and anxiety 0.29 and 0.34. The combined remission and recovery rates were 76% for depression and 74% for anxiety. The mean number of treatment sessions was 5.15 in a mean time of 2 h and 45 min. On an average, patients received at least three of these contacts by telephone. Outcomes are comparable with benchmarked trials, reviews, and routine datasets. Conclusions. Combining low‐intensity stepped care psychological treatment with a telephony‐based collaborative care organizational system can deliver good clinical outcomes in routine practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/014466509x405178

Cites

52 of 52 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
Richards, D. A., & Suckling, R.
Affiliations
University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Richards, David A.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-11
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
377-396
ISSN
  • 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8260
OpenAlex
W2033901652
Cited by
154
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 18
FWCI
22.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, stepped care, collaborative care, anxiety, depression, psychotherapy, telemedicine, telephone-delivered therapy, treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Counseling, Depressive Disorder, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Telephone, Cohort Studies, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Evidence-Based Medicine

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