Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomised controlled trial of non-directive counselling, cognitive-behaviour therapy and usual general practitioner care in the management of depression as well as mixed anxiety and depression in primary care.

Open access
King, Sibbald, Ward, Bower, Lloyd, Gabbay, Byford·2000·Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine both the clinical and cost-effectiveness of usual general practitioner (GP) care compared with two types of brief psychological therapy (non-directive counselling and cognitive-behaviour therapy) in the management of depression as well as mixed anxiety and depression in the primary care setting. DESIGN: The design was principally a pragmatic randomised controlled trial, but was accompanied by two additional allocation methods allowing patient preference: the option of a specific choice of treatment (preference allocation) and the option to be randomised between the psychological therapies only. Of the 464 patients allocated to the three treatments, 197 were randomised between the three treatments, 137 chose a specific treatment, and 130 were randomised between the psychological therapies only. The patients underwent follow-up assessments at 4 and 12 months. SETTING: The study was conducted in 24 general practices in Greater Manchester and London. SUBJECTS: A total of 464 eligible patients, aged 18 years and over, were referred by 73 GPs and allocated to one of the psychological therapies or usual GP care for depressive symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions consisted of brief psychological therapy (12 sessions maximum) or usual GP care. Non-directive counselling was provided by counsellors who were qualified for accreditation by the British Association for Counselling. Cognitive-behaviour therapy was provided by clinical psychologists who were qualified for accreditation by the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies. Usual GP care included discussions with patients and the prescription of medication, but GPs were asked to refrain from referring patients for psychological intervention for at least 4 months. Most therapy sessions took place on a weekly basis in the general practices. By the 12-month follow-up, GP care in some cases did include referral to mental healthcare specialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The clinical outcomes included depressive symptoms, general psychiatric symptoms, social function and patient satisfaction. The economic outcomes included direct and indirect costs and quality of life. Assessments were carried out at baseline during face-to-face interviews as well as at 4 and 12 months in person or by post. RESULTS: At 4 months, both psychological therapies had reduced depressive symptoms to a significantly greater extent than usual GP care. Patients in the psychological therapy groups exhibited mean scores on the Beck Depression Inventory that were 4-5 points lower than the mean score of patients in the usual GP care group, a difference that was also clinically significant. These differences did not generalize to other measures of outcome. There was no significant difference in outcome between the two psychological therapies when they were compared directly using all 260 patients randomised to a psychological therapy by either randomised allocation method. At 12 months, the patients in all three groups had improved to the same extent. The lack of a significant difference between the treatment groups at this point resulted from greater improvement of the patients in the GP care group between the 4- and 12-month follow-ups. At 4 months, patients in both psychological therapy groups were more satisfied with their treatment than those in the usual GP care group. However, by 12 months, patients who had received non-directive counselling were more satisfied than those in either of the other two groups. There were few differences in the baseline characteristics of patients who were randomised or expressed a treatment preference, and no differences in outcome between these patients. Similar outcomes were found for patients who chose either psychological therapy. Again, there were no significant differences between the two groups at 4 or 12 months. Patients who chose counselling were more satisfied with treatment than those who chose c

Overview

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 · 10.3310/hta4190

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
King, Sibbald, Ward, Bower, Lloyd, Gabbay, & Byford
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Published
2000
Volume
4
Issue
19
Pages
1-83
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
OpenAlex
W2136935040
Cited by
274
References
11
FWCI
11.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Funders
Health Technology Assessment Programme (93/07/66)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomised controlled trial of non-directive counselling, cognitive-behaviour therapy and usual general practitioner care in the management of depression as well as mixed anxiety and depression in primary care. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3310/hta4190
The paper
King, Sibbald, Ward, Bower, Lloyd, Gabbay, & Byford. (2000). Randomised controlled trial of non-directive counselling, cognitive-behaviour therapy and usual general practitioner care in the management of depression as well as mixed anxiety and depression in primary care. Health Technology Assessment. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta4190

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.