Guided self-help (GSH) for anxiety is widely implemented in primary care services because of service efficiency gains, but there is also evidence of poor acceptability, low effectiveness and relapse.

The aim was to compare preferences for, acceptability and efficacy of cognitive–behavioural guided self-help (CBT-GSH) versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help (CAT-GSH).

This was a pragmatic, randomised, patient preference trial (Clinical trials identifier: NCT03730532). The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) was the primary outcome at 8- and 24-week follow-up. Interventions were delivered competently on the telephone via structured workbooks over 6–8 (30–35 min) sessions by trained practitioners.

A total of 271 eligible participants were included, of whom 19 (7%) accepted being randomised and 252 (93%) chose their treatment. In the preference cohort, 181 (72%) chose CAT-GSH and 71 (28%) preferred CBT-GSH. BAI outcomes in the preference and randomised cohorts did not differ at 8 weeks (−0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) −4.52 to 2.92) or 24 weeks (0.85, 95% CI −2.87 to 4.57). After controlling for allocation method and baseline covariates, there were no differences between CAT-GSH and CBT-GSH at 8 weeks (F(1, 263) = 0.22, P = 0.639) or at 24 weeks (F(1, 263) = 0.22, P = 0.639). Mean BAI change from baseline was a reduction of 9.28 for CAT-GSH and 9.78 for CBT-GSH at 8 weeks and 12.90 for CAT-GSH and 12.43 for CBT-GSH at 24 weeks.

Patients accessing routine primary care talking treatments prefer to choose the intervention they receive. CAT-GSH expands the treatment offer in primary care for patients with anxiety seeking a brief but analytically informed GSH solution.

Since 2008, the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme has offered adults in England evidence-based psychological treatments for common mental disorders (CMDs) such as depression and anxiety disorders. However, inequalities in access have not been explored at the national level.

Using a unique individual patient dataset that linked 2011 Census information of English residents to national IAPT data collected between April 2017 and March 2018, we estimated the rate of access by a wide range of socio-demographic characteristics that are not routinely available. A large household survey was used to estimate the prevalence of probable CMDs by these socio-demographic characteristics. We estimated the probability of access to IAPT amongst people with CMDs by comparing the rates of access from IAPT data and the estimates of prevalence of CMDs from the household survey. Both unadjusted and adjusted (for important patient characteristics) access rates were estimated in logistic regression models.

As a proportion of those with a probable CMD, access to IAPT varied markedly by socio-demographic characteristics. Older adults, males, people born outside of the UK, people with religious beliefs, people from Asian ethnic backgrounds, people reporting a disability and those without any academic or professional qualifications were underrepresented in IAPT services nationally, in adjusted models.

The identification of patients who may be underrepresented in IAPT provides an opportunity for services to target outreach and engagement with these groups. Further understanding of barriers to access should help increase equity in access.

1. (1) To gain insight into client and clinician experiences of VT during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. (2) To assess the acceptability and feasibility of VT within two NHS short-term psychological support services.

3. (3) To identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of VT within two NHS short-term psychological support services.

1. (1) To describe how IAPT services record disabilities, and in particular record whether a person identifies themselves as having a learning disability.1

2. (2) To explore the differences in processes and therapy outcomes for people with learning disabilities compared with people with no disabilities and people with other disabilities.

3. (3) To understand adaptations to IAPT processes and therapies that may make IAPT services more accessible to people with learning disabilities.

Despite evidence for the general effectiveness of psychological therapies, there exists substantial heterogeneity in patient outcomes. We aimed to identify factors associated with baseline severity of depression and anxiety symptoms, rate of symptomatic change over the course of therapy, and symptomatic recovery in a primary mental health care setting.

Using data from a service evaluation involving 35 527 patients in England's psychological and wellbeing [Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT)] services, we applied latent growth models to explore which routinely-collected sociodemographic, clinical, and therapeutic variables were associated with baseline symptom severity and rate of symptomatic change. We used a multilevel logit model to determine variables associated with symptomatic recovery.

Being female, younger, more functionally impaired, and more socioeconomically disadvantaged was associated with higher baseline severity of both depression and anxiety symptoms. Being older, less functionally impaired, and having more severe baseline symptomatology was associated with more rapid improvement of both depression and anxiety symptoms (male gender and greater socioeconomic disadvantage were further associated with rate of change for depression only). Therapy intensity and appointment frequency seemed to have no correlation with rate of symptomatic improvement. Patients with lower baseline symptom severity, less functional impairment, and older age had a greater likelihood of achieving symptomatic recovery (as defined by IAPT criteria).

We must continue to investigate how best to tailor psychotherapeutic interventions to fit patients’ needs. Patients who begin therapy with more severe depression and/or anxiety symptoms and poorer functioning merit special attention, as these characteristics may negatively impact recovery.

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services treat most patients in England who present to primary care with major depression. Psychodynamic psychotherapy is one of the psychotherapies offered. Dynamic Interpersonal Therapy (DIT) is a psychodynamic and mentalization-based treatment for depression. 16 sessions are delivered over approximately 5 months. Neither DIT's effectiveness relative to low-intensity treatment (LIT), nor the feasibility of randomizing patients to psychodynamic or cognitive-behavioural treatments (CBT) in an IAPT setting has been demonstrated.

147 patients were randomized in a 3:2:1 ratio to DIT (n = 73), LIT (control intervention; n = 54) or CBT (n = 20) in four IAPT treatment services in a combined superiority and feasibility design. Patients meeting criteria for major depressive disorder were assessed at baseline, mid-treatment (3 months) and post-treatment (6 months) using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and other self-rated questionnaire measures. Patients receiving DIT were also followed up 6 months post-completion.

The DIT arm showed significantly lower HRSD-17 scores at the 6-month primary end-point compared with LIT (d = 0.70). Significantly more DIT patients (51%) showed clinically significant change on the HRSD-17 compared with LIT (9%). The DIT and CBT arms showed equivalence on most outcomes. Results were similar with the BDI-II. DIT showed benefit across a range of secondary outcomes.

DIT delivered in a primary care setting is superior to LIT and can be appropriately compared with CBT in future RCTs.