The Effectiveness of Low-Intensity Psychological Interventions for Comorbid Depression and Anxiety in Patients with Long-Term Conditions: A Real-World Naturalistic Observational Study in IAPT Integrated Care.
Chi Tak Lee, Siobhan Harty, Adedeji Adegoke, Jorge Palacios, Claire M Gillan, Derek Richards
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Low-Intensity Psychological Interventions for Comorbid Depression and Anxiety in Patients with Long-Term Conditions: A Real-World Naturalistic Observational Study in IAPT Integrated Care.","authors":"Chi Tak Lee, Siobhan Harty, Adedeji Adegoke, Jorge Palacios, Claire M Gillan, Derek Richards","doi":"10.1007/s12529-023-10215-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low-intensity psychological interventions may be a cost-effective, accessible solution for treating depression and anxiety in patients with long-term conditions, but evidence from real-world service settings is lacking. This study examined the effectiveness of low-intensity psychological interventions provided in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme in England for patients with and without long-term conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients (total N = 21,051, long-term conditions n = 4024) enrolled in three low-intensity psychological interventions, i.e. Internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT), guided self-help (GSH), and psychoeducational group therapy (PGT) within a Talking Therapies service from 2016 to 2020. Primary outcomes included pre-post-treatment changes in depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, both cohorts significantly improved on all outcomes post-treatment, with large effect sizes. Patients with long-term conditions experienced a greater reduction in depression while those without experienced a greater reduction in anxiety, but these differences were marginal (< 1 score difference on both measures). No difference between the cohorts was shown when comparing the differential effectiveness across interventions, but those engaging in iCBT showed greater reduction in depression and anxiety than those in GSH and PGT, while those in GSH improved more than PGT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Low-intensity psychological interventions, particularly iCBT, were effective in treating depression and anxiety in patients with long-term conditions in a real-world service setting. Our large-scale study supports the continued and increased implementation of low-intensity psychological interventions for this subpopulation via integrated care.</p>","PeriodicalId":54208,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"730-740"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11452547/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-023-10215-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Low-intensity psychological interventions may be a cost-effective, accessible solution for treating depression and anxiety in patients with long-term conditions, but evidence from real-world service settings is lacking. This study examined the effectiveness of low-intensity psychological interventions provided in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme in England for patients with and without long-term conditions.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients (total N = 21,051, long-term conditions n = 4024) enrolled in three low-intensity psychological interventions, i.e. Internet-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy (iCBT), guided self-help (GSH), and psychoeducational group therapy (PGT) within a Talking Therapies service from 2016 to 2020. Primary outcomes included pre-post-treatment changes in depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7).
Results: Overall, both cohorts significantly improved on all outcomes post-treatment, with large effect sizes. Patients with long-term conditions experienced a greater reduction in depression while those without experienced a greater reduction in anxiety, but these differences were marginal (< 1 score difference on both measures). No difference between the cohorts was shown when comparing the differential effectiveness across interventions, but those engaging in iCBT showed greater reduction in depression and anxiety than those in GSH and PGT, while those in GSH improved more than PGT.
Conclusions: Low-intensity psychological interventions, particularly iCBT, were effective in treating depression and anxiety in patients with long-term conditions in a real-world service setting. Our large-scale study supports the continued and increased implementation of low-intensity psychological interventions for this subpopulation via integrated care.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (IJBM) is the official scientific journal of the International Society for Behavioral Medicine (ISBM). IJBM seeks to present the best theoretically-driven, evidence-based work in the field of behavioral medicine from around the globe. IJBM embraces multiple theoretical perspectives, research methodologies, groups of interest, and levels of analysis. The journal is interested in research across the broad spectrum of behavioral medicine, including health-behavior relationships, the prevention of illness and the promotion of health, the effects of illness on the self and others, the effectiveness of novel interventions, identification of biobehavioral mechanisms, and the influence of social factors on health. We welcome experimental, non-experimental, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies as well as implementation and dissemination research, integrative reviews, and meta-analyses.