Search results

This article sets out to provide information regarding the evidence base for psychological treatments and to demonstrate that the number of mental health professionals who are available and competent to deliver these treatments is very small compared with the numbers of people who might benefit. The article also considers the prevalence of conditions that are amenable to psychological treatment and then explores how ‘stepped care’ may be one solution for providing available treatment resources in a way that is fairest and most effective for the population at large.

It is widely acknowledged that there is a significant gap between the demand for psychological therapy services and the supply (Bower & Gilbody, 2005). It is also well‐known that the health needs of people with learning disabilities are typically greater than those of the rest of the population, and that they are more likely to experience mental health problems and psychological distress (Lindsey, 2002). Difficulties in accessing psychological therapy services and long waiting times have been commonplace in recent years (Richards et al, 2003). Current moves towards modernising the NHS have led to increased accountability and competition between health providers, and many providers of psychological services have tried to increase their accessibility, effectiveness and efficiency. Adaptations to referral pathways and service delivery models in psychological care services have made changes to how clients access services and the input they receive. Accessible services, employing collaborative and stepped care models, have been identified as effective in delivering services in ways which best meet the needs of individuals and maximise the efficient use of resources (Bower & Gilbody, 2005). In our local psychology service for adults with learning disabilities, we have attempted to develop service delivery strategies and modernise referral routes so that services can be delivered which better meet the needs of our client group by optimising accessibility, efficiency and effectiveness.

The current focus on psychological well‐being and the treatment of people experiencing common mental disorder in primary care is of interest to health professionals and economists alike (Centre for Economic Performance Mental Health Policy Group, 2006). This brings with it an important opportunity to consider how services for people living with long term medical conditions may benefit from developments in widening access to psychological therapies. The National Service Framework for Longterm Conditions (DoH, 2005a) aims to improve the quality of life for people living with chronic medical conditions. Further to this, NICE Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) (NICE, 2004a) specifically focuses attention on quality of life issues for COPD sufferers and the influence of co‐morbid mental disorder on the ability of individuals to optimise selfmanagement of their condition. By examining issues relating to co‐morbidity of common mental disorders within the long‐term condition of COPD this paper concerns itself with how the agenda for widening access to psychological therapies delivered through a stepped model of care and the introduction of new mental health workforce roles such as community matrons, case managers and primary care graduate mental health workers (PCGMHWs) provides an opportunity for primary care services to integrate mental health care into chronic disease management for COPD, which in turn may provide a model for the development of services for other long‐term medical conditions.

Recent guidelines suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has a pivotal role to play in the treatment of common mental health problems (CMHPs). There is a danger that we simply ask for ‘more of the same’ instead of looking at all the current limitations preventing individuals from accessing appropriate help. Doing this leads us to aim for a more radical and innovative approach to the CMHPs. This paper suggests that progress in primary care mental health has been much more limited than mental health workers and, in particular, researchers often acknowledge. It looks at the major obstacles barring the way to the development of services that could meet the needs of the very large number of people in our communities with CMHPs.

STEPS is a primary care mental health team that has attempted to develop a very high volume multi‐level, multi‐purpose service for those with mild to moderate problems. The service attempts to overcome many of the limitations of more traditional services. This paper describes the services contained within the six level model.

Despite the emergence of NICE guidelines regarding the effectiveness and appropriateness of psychological therapies for the majority of common mental health problems, access to these services is still dramatically underdeveloped and uneven. Estimates of untreated problems such as depression and anxiety in primary care signal the extent of these problems and the scale of investment in new services, if these needs are to be adequately met in the future.The Department of Health's and the Care Services Improvement Partnership's (CSIP) Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme sets out a framework and a series of co‐ordinated actions, including two national demonstration sites, to begin to address these issues in England.This paper examines the origins and policy drivers that have given rise to the IAPT programme, outlines the progress to date and specifically assesses the implications for the mental health workforce of this programme. Issues addressed include the workforce profiles of existing services, career frameworks for psychological therapists, the capacity of training providers to train new and existing staff in psychological therapies and the challenges implicit in devising a workforce delivery plan to support the IAPT programme.

This paper aims to explore the use of low intensity in-cell workbooks within a psychological therapies service for male prisoners, an intervention adapted for use during the COVID-19 pandemic. It seeks to explore the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing psychological distress, explore individuals’ progression through the service following engagement with the workbooks and, finally, to understand individual’s experiences of the intervention through evaluating feedback provided.

CORE-10 scores from 66 male prisoners at a Category C prison were evaluated pre and post completion of an adapted in-cell workbook intervention, to explore the potential effectiveness of the intervention in reducing psychological distress. Qualitative feedback given by participants was also explored to understand individual’s experiences of engaging with the intervention.

Evaluation of 66 male prisoners revealed significant reductions in psychological distress on the CORE-10. Findings demonstrated that over half of men included in the evaluation were “stepped-up” for further interventions as per the stepped-care treatment model. Feedback forms highlighted the value of the therapeutic relationship and a “something versus nothing” approach.

The paper considers several limitations to the research approach, of which future studies should seek to explore when carrying out similar research.

The paper includes implications for the use of low intensity self-help interventions in prison psychological services, during a time when the provision of face-to-face interventions was limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The paper explores the use of self-help materials in psychological treatment settings, of which there is very little research on in prisons. In addition, the paper contributes to the body of research on psychological well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped-care primary care psychology service through triangulating clinical outcome data, service user satisfaction ratings and feedback from referrers.

A mixed method approach including a repeated measures design (pre- and post-clinical data on standardised psychometrics) for clinical outcomes and an online and postal survey with quantitative and qualitative elements offered to all service users and referrers to the service.

In total, 125 service users completed a full intervention with the service with 56% treatment completers demonstrating a reliable reduction in the symptoms of low mood and 49.6% in anxiety. Of those within the clinical range for depression at assessment, 66.67% achieved clinical recovery following an intervention. Of those within the clinical range for an anxiety disorder at assessment, 62.03% achieved clinical recovery following an intervention. Service users reported high levels of satisfaction with the service specifying particular interpersonal qualities of the therapists and the individualisation of service provision as crucial positive factors. Referrers similarly reported high levels of overall satisfaction with the service, specifying that the speed of response to referral and length of intervention was of greatest importance to them.

Stepped-care psychological interventions reduce psychological distress in treatment completers with mild to moderate symptoms of anxiety and low mood. The overall interpersonal experience may be of greater importance to service users in their evaluation of a service than clinical outcomes. In their relationship to a Psychology service, referrers value speed of response and ongoing feedback. Building a robust, highly valued service may require the triangulation of evidence from all key stakeholders.

This paper provides a pragmatic template of how a rigorous evaluation of a primary care psychology service requires evidence from multiple stakeholders.

This paper highlights the social context of common mental disorders in primary care and the paucity of evidence relating to effective social interventions. It introduces the ABC‐E Model of Emotion, which combines social interventions with psychological therapy, and discusses how the implementation of the new role of graduate primary care mental health worker (GPCMHW) provides an opportunity for holistic practice in helping individuals experiencing mild to moderate mental health difficulties in primary care. It provides a case example of the implementation of the ABC‐E model and makes recommendations for further research including the evaluation of the model and GPCMHW training programmes.

Two years ago, we published within this journal a scoping article (Turpin et al, 2006) concerning the urgent need to review and enhance the workforce responsible for delivering psychological therapies to people seeking help for common mental health problems in primary care (London School of Economics, 2006). We estimated that the demand for such interventions, the service models that might deliver increased capacity for psychological treatments, the implications for workforce numbers and the impact that this would have on education and training. Much of the thinking that was adopted within the review was based on current development work around the mental health workforce led by the National Workforce Programme sponsored by the National Institute for Mental Health England (NIMHE) on New Ways of Working (NWW).The current paper reflects on the process and the added value that NWW has contributed to what is a radical new venture, which has been described by the lead evaluator of the pilot Improving Access for Psychological Therapies (IAPT) phase, Professor Glenys Parry, as 'the industrialisation of psychological therapies'. More specifically, it reviews the implementation of a national programme designated as IAPT, which was commissioned on the basis of the NWW work, and the evidence accrued from the IAPT national demonstration sites at Doncaster and Newham, together with the efforts of Lord Layard and the New Savoy Partnership.The first year implementation of IAPT is described, together with the lessons learned from the roll out. As the programme has developed, it has become important to ensure that clients also have a choice of evidence‐based interventions. NWW has provided a means to help practitioners come together from a range of therapeutic orientations and professions to contribute to this more diverse workforce. Finally, it is argued that NWW has been instrumental in helping managers and professions alike think more flexibly about service models and provision, and how to develop a new workforce competent to deliver such an innovative service.