The Phobic Avoidance of Attending to Real World Mental Health Outcomes


just published  in Michael Scott

When I look at mental health research, I notice a startling avoidance of real-world outcome measures. It seems almost phobic. Yet this type of outcome should be considered the most important. After all, who cares whether some arbitrary measure goes up or down slightly after a week or two? What we care about should be whether people have improved quality of life over the long term. Can they get back to doing the things they used to do? Do they participate in the world, socially, at work? Do they enjoy their hobbies?

So why do researchers avoid asking these questions?

One big reason is that researchers are incentivized to find a positive effect. The motto of academia is “publish or perish,” and everyone knows that null effects are rarely published. But your job may depend on your ability to publish your next study. Even worse, plenty of researchers are funded by the pharmaceutical and device industries—corporations that obviously are hoping you find a nice effect for their drugs and devices.

Even with the best of intentions, though, the people who are testing therapies are often the people who invented the therapy and their disciples—who obviously have at least an unconscious bias, hoping that their personal theory works!

page1image983232 page1image985344page1image15640944


So, consciously or unconsciously, researchers tend to accept a lower threshold for proof of effectiveness. It’s difficult to actually improve people’s real lives significantly, and it’s a lot easier to use a ton of arbitrary metrics and find at least one “statistically significant” effect over a short time. The upshot is, to paraphrase the Dodo in Alice in Wonderland, “all medications and psychological therapies are winners and all must have prizes.”

And it seems that the media, politicians, and midlevel healthcare bureaucrats similarly have no interest in examining the validity of outcome measures. Instead, they pass on oversimplified understandings and glib slogans as if they encapsulate the nuances of what is actually quite controversial research. Most have the best of intentions to be a “mental health advocate,” and they’re told by establishment figures that any criticism of the existing system would be “stigmatizing” and “stop people from getting treatment”— treatment that we only assume works, again, based on arbitrary statistical outcomes over the short-term, not real-world improvement in the long-term.

In the worst-case scenario, researchers and activists who note the misleading research and conclusions dripping with “spin” in an attempt to improve the system are called “antipsychiatry” and marginalized within their own communities.

One searches in vain for studies that ask, after treatment, “Are you back to your old self?” and, importantly, “for how long?” These are the outcomes that patients really care about. Without such questions it is impossible to chart the trajectory of a person’s functioning. Such questions are at the heart of really listening to the patient. Without that, any therapeutic edifice crumbles. But it is not rocket science, just basic respect!

At best, and rarely, studies will report on the proportion of people who lose their diagnostic status—“recovered”—as assessed by an independent clinician. But these don’t indicate the duration of recovery. Do you lose your diagnostic status after two weeks, but then worsen again by a month?

Symptom Reduction vs Added Value

Finding the right psychological treatment for the right disorder is the window through which CBT researchers have gazed for decades. Likewise, psychiatrists have gazed through a similar window, which van Os and Guloksuz call “finding the right medication for the right brain disease.” Whether therapists or psychiatrists, researchers and clinicians have looked predominantly at symptom reduction, rather than whether treatment has provided added value to the client’s life. And all of this is usually rated by the clinician— rarely do we ask clients what they think about the treatment.

There has however been some limited success in the application of CBT to depression and some anxiety disorders, at least in randomised controlled trials. But even here researchers conclude “CBT is probably effective in the treatment of MDD, GAD, PAD and SAD; that the effects are large when the control condition is waiting list, but small to moderate when it is care-as-usual or pill placebo; and that, because of the small number of high-quality trials, these effects are still uncertain and should be considered with caution.”

page2image919040 page2image918272


Similarly, other researchers found that CBT had a large effect for treating OCD, and a moderate effect for treating PTSD. But beyond these DSM diagnoses, there is a dearth of credible supportive evidence.

Evolution or Dissolution?

It is the 50th Anniversary of the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, the self-proclaimed lead organisation for CBT in the UK. The recent annual conference included a keynote speech called “On the Evolution of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy: A Four-Decade Retrospective and a Look to the Future.”

But evidence that it has evolved is sparse to non-existent. In 2008, Ost examined the methodology of what were then termed third-wave CBT therapies and concluded that the methodology employed made them significantly less reliable than the early pre-millenium CBT studies. He opined that the third-wave therapies would not qualify as evidence- based, despite yielding evidence of significant effect sizes. The evidence for the small, incremental changes in complexity and greater effectiveness of CBT is simply not there. Rather than evolution, we have evidence of the operation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in that therapeutic energies are being made available in less useful ways—dissolution.

Dissolution Under the Microscope

The PICOTS framework is a mnemonic used by the FDA to define evidence-based medicine. The “O” refers to outcomes and the FDA argues that these must be “outcomes that matter to patients and which predict long-term successful results.” Essentially, no cooking the books with small but statistically significant differences in outcome between an intervention and its comparator (the “C” of the mnemonic), ideally an active placebo.

The “P” stands for population, with a prerequisite to specify clearly who received the intervention, so that other researchers can replicate the findings with the same group of people. The “I” stands for intervention and requires a clear elaboration of what the treatment involved. For psychological therapies, this means the publication of a manual. The “T” refers to timeframe: how long have the treatment effects lasted. Finally, “S” refers to the treatment setting (e.g., primary care).

Over the past 40 years, psychological therapy (mainly CBT) studies have increasingly paid lip service to PICOTS. They have progressively looked less like the original pioneering efficacy studies. There has been a drift to reliance on self-report measures to define a population (P), as opposed to defining a population with a “gold standard” diagnostic interview—largely on the grounds of cost and expediency. Outcomes (“O”) have been progressively less likely to be assessed by independent blind raters.

For example, since the millennium there has been the development and evaluation of low-intensity CBT (typically defined as 6 hours or less of therapist contact). In none of these has there been an independent blind rater; outcome has always been assessed by

page3image920768 page3image920384 page3image920192 page3image920000


self-report and rarely has a diagnostic interview served as the gateway into the study. Yet, in the UK, these low-intensity treatments are the first-line treatments for depression and the anxiety disorders.

Not only has the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) endorsed the usage of low-intensity CBT, but they have recently advised that in the first instance therapists should market eight sessions of group CBT for depression.

The lack of any credible evidence on real-world impact and duration of gains troubles them not. It appears an answer to the managerial dream of throughput. Therapies are accessed and patients axed.

CBT and Antidepressants in Practice

There is nothing in the arrangement of routine psychological therapy services that guarantees that a) the “right” disorder will be identified and b) the “right” treatment will be forthcoming. Routine services, such as IAPT in the UK, do not make diagnoses. In a just- reported paper by Clark et al (2022), IAPT clinicians were asked to refer patients to a social anxiety disorder study, but only half the patients referred were found to have the disorder in the study diagnostic assessment.

Thus, left to their own devices, the routine clinicians would have been providing inappropriate treatment to 1 in 2 patients. There can be no certainty that the treatment provided in routine practice is a bona fide treatment, as fidelity checks have never been made. Fidelity checks are disorder specific, with matching treatment targets and interventions. For example, in depression, tackling the loss of the pleasure response (anhedonia) with activity scheduling.

There is a potency of treatment gap between the interventions used in randomized controlled trials and their translation into routine practice. A paper published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research last year showed a 25% response rate for those who had antidepressants and manual-driven psychotherapy (mostly CBT), no better than antidepressants alone. This compares with a 31% response rate in those given a placebo in other studies.

Proper translation of the benefits of treatments identified in randomised controlled trials cannot be done on the cheap. It requires rigorous reliable assessments and a commitment to fidelity. But the latter has to be accompanied by the flexibility of adaptation to the individual. Respect and reverence of patients’ perspectives are paramount. Without funding bodies going beyond operational matters of numbers/waiting times and focussing on real world outcomes, the promise of randomised controlled trials will not be realised. There is a pressing need to return to basics by measuring treatment effects in the real- world.

In practice, there is also unfettered discretion when it comes to a clinician’s choice of which client problems to tackle, in what order and with what evidence-based protocol.

page4image1041408 page4image1032384 page4image1048128 page4image1046592 page4image1047360 page4image1045440


It is, however, possible for individual therapists to deliver quality therapy. I have outlined the specifics of this in Personalising Trauma Treatment: Reframing and Reimagining. I have termed this “restorative CBT”—returning the person to their old self. In this work, the uniqueness of the individual is recognised (e.g., “what does the trauma mean to you today?”), yet at the same time commonalities are recognised, such as the state of “terrified surprise” (a combination of exaggerated startle response and hypervigilance) experienced by those most debilitated by trauma.

Unfettered Discretion on Outcome Measures

In their important book Noise, published last year, Kahneman et al highlight the poor levels of agreement on matters as diverse as judicial sentencing and psychiatric diagnosis. Such disparities are clearly unfair. But there is also heterogeneity of outcome measures. This makes it possible for authors to claim positive benefits in the absence of any real-world demonstration of effectiveness. Researchers have had a field day with unfettered discretion on outcome measures, facilitating the quest for positive findings and heightening the likelihood of publication.

Clients have a right to expect that primary outcome measures should be meaningful to them. The danger is that because of a power imbalance, clients defer to the conclusions of the professionals on outcome and, in Kahneman et al’s terms, a “respect-expert” heuristic (rule of thumb) comes into play. As a consequence, the client is likely to be continually short-changed.

Get the MIA Newsletter

Sign-up to receive our weekly newsletter and other periodic updates.

page5image1024832 page5image1018880page5image1028864


A Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner Breaks The Wall of Silence


I will never forget how, when I started working at the IAPT call-centre, I was stressed and rested my head for a few moments. I was interrupted by a “clinical psychologist” who in accusatory tone proclaimed that, “it does not seem that you are working”. The die it seems was cast. Not once in my 3 years as a Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner (PWP) have I felt that anyone at work cared for one another.



‘When I Want Your Opinion I’ll Give It To You’


Naively I thought that “psychological services” would be a haven of openness, not a venue as “hellish” as any other sales related job. Contentious issues were not allowed to be placed on the agenda at meetings. If I dared to bring up issues that mattered, the Managers would “have a word with me in private”. It felt like “The Twilight Zone” and “Twin Peaks”; you could feel something was not right, but everyone pretended that things were fine and that it was me who was the problem. If there was any issue with what I said, no one gently told me, instead they went straight to my manager. So, I always felt paranoid that whatever I say or do, may be reported.

I will never forget the moments where I would try to bring up a new approach or new knowledge only to be told “it is not in line with NICE and IAPT” and “do not read extra information because you will not need it”. A re-enactment of George Orwell’s 1984, rather than the delivery of a 21st Century psychological service. Worryingly this seems to be the norm in the NHS, with the frontline troops powerless. 


What It Is Really Like At The Coal Face


The short end of it all is that being a PWP is very similar to run of the mill call-centre, telemarking and sales job. No matter what the average worker says “but we do a great service”, I feel they are a tad bit delusional. I do not blame them. To survive this job you either need to resort to trickery or delude yourself that you are doing something worthwhile. The latter group probably have a mortgage to pay. We are told what to say, how to say it, when to say it and constantly told “it’s all about the numbers/targets”. We also have a script, which is very similar to those phone contract customer service people. The hellish brilliance of IAPT is that if the targets are not reached, the organisation uses an attributional bias to blame the “practitioners”/miners and not the “system”/pit owners and fellow travellers.


The Re-Branding of What Doesn’t Work, Doesn’t Work


Pre-IAPT there were “mental health workers (MHWs)”, and the public had some idea of the discharge of this particular, professional role. But from 2008 MHWs became Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners, leaving the public and professionals scratching their head as to what the designation might mean. Where PWPs to be regarded as professionals or not? Despite the inherent confusion, I followed my work’s advice to the letter: did the questionnaires, kept the original scores and ploughed onwards. However, what I noticed is that many clients (I dislike using the term patients because it doesn’t feel like we are official clinicians either) were finishing treatment or dropping out with “high scores”. It was not too long until I was interrogated for a below 50% recovery rate.


Jumping Through The Hoops of ‘Recovery’


The recovery rate of 50% is impossible unless one manipulates the numbers or manipulates the clients to be compliant. I guess, good old fashioned “sales tactics” (convincing people they need a product or that they are better than when they started). Of course, the Managers did not care. Safe to say, I found a crack in the system: since the powers all care about numbers, if you deliver the numbers, they will not question you. However, dare you dip below what is expected of their Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), then they are like bloodhounds searching for you. But there has never been a real world KPI that a client would recognise, such as being back to their old selves for at least 8 weeks after treatment. Instead clients are expected at each session to doodle on questionnaires in the prescence of the PWP and bizarrely, these are used as the metrics of recovery.


At the coal face, I can conceal, to a limited extent what I am doing from the powers that be and deliver something of benefit. I do not hound them for the questionnaires every single time because let us face it, that creates a major barrier in treatment. Also, we are not MDs or Clinical Psychologists that can diagnose. It is a joke when we have to collect the data because it is meaningless.




The issue then becomes that I did not feel like I was learning anything. All I was learning was how to manage office politics and be a better liar. One could apply for High Intensity Training but they still focus on targets, so, no thanks. Any person of good conscience will not last long in IAPT. If you have any issues as a worker with IAPT, they will say it is a “you” problem. I once mistakenly vented my frustrations with how they were doing things at a meeting. This resulted in evident displeasure and near the end the next meeting was told to “this is not a space to vent grievances”. If the clients and workers had a platform to vent their frustrations, I do not think IAPT would still be operational. 


PWPs Ambassadors For A ‘Failed State’?


Working in IAPT is robotic: clicking tabs, ticking boxes and collecting numbers – a                                de-humanising experience.  There is little to encourage anyone to become a PWP. In fairness I suppose, at least a personal level, I have survived lockdown financially. But the service has in effect been “cooking the books” and making the company look good. I fear for the mental health not only of the ambassadors but for that of clients past and to come.


I am off to other pastures, can you wonder at the turnover?


Bernice ( a pseudonym)



Re-referrals to IAPT Typically Attend only One Treatment Session Because It Is So ‘Noisy’

The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) gatekeepers, Psychological Well-being Practitioners (PWPs) appear not to learn from their experience Cairn et al (2014). A product of unfettered discretion.

In a study of 50 re-referrals Cairns et al (2014), failing to engage or dropping out from treatment accounted for a large proportion of referrals: two referrals, 75%; three referrals, 60%; four referrals, 58%; and five referrals, 50%. 

A Failure of Supervision

This debacle is not surprising as Painter (2018) found PWPs had an average of 2.5 minutes to discuss a case with their Case Manager. PWPs are not supervised in any meaningful sense of the word, there is precious little opportunity for reflection or emotional support. Supervision is a necessary part of any organisations monitoring of the  quality of output. But the only ‘supervision’ PWPs receive is admonishment if IAPT’s 50% recovery rate is not achieved and for which they are the judge and jury.

Disagreement Between Therapists Is Rampant

IAPT fails to grasp that there is no evidence amongst PWPs of agreement on which are the important difficulties, which ones should be tackled first and with which protocol. By its’ own admission IAPT staff do not diagnose. As such they fail the entry requirement for accessing NICE protocols. They are like burglars caught holding the loot protesting that they are NICE compliant. Rather IAPT staff operate with unfettered discretion. 

Kahneman et al 2021 in their book ‘Noise’ have shown how, unfettered discretion wreaks havoc from judicial sentencing to psychiatry. The ‘Noise’ from IAPT is positively deafening, with clients ushered in every conceivable direction. The IAPT orchestra plays as the Titanic sinks.

How PWPs Become Disorientated

Cairns et al (2014) put the workings of PWPs under the microscope  and found that in their sample of 50 re-referrals, the taxonomy of problems, was represented by Table 1. But they had no signpost to indicate which problem should be the focus or of which order to tackle the problems or which NICE protocol to follow. IAPT’s ‘Problem Descriptors’ are in Kahneman et al 2021 terms a heuristic (rule of thumb) to bypass the effortful demands of a standardised reliable diagnostic interview, resulting in chaos.

Table 1
  Two referrals 31 patients Three referrals11 patients Four referrals 6 patients Five referrals2 patients
Alcohol 4 2 1 2
Anger 4 2 1 2
Anxiety 18 8 6 2
Bereavement 7 2 0 0
Body image 1 1 1 0
Debt 2 0 0 0
Depression 24 10 6 2
Drugs current 2 1 1 0
Drugs history 4 0 0 0
Domestic violence 0 0 2 0
Eating disorder – bulimia 0 3 1 0
Mental disorder 1 2 1 2
Obsessive-compulsive disorder 3 1 2 0
Physical abuse 6 0 0 1
Panic attacks 0 1 0 0
Post-natal depression 0 1 0 0
Relationships 9 3 5 0
Sexual abuse 3 4 1 0
Self harm 2 3 0 0
Social isolation 1 1 0 0
Stress 2 0 1 0
Unemployment 2 0 1 0
Violence 0 1 0 1
Work issues 4 0 0 1

The problem is that one PWPs anxiety case could be a colleagues depression case, like in Alice in Wonderland the terms mean whatever the PWP wants them to mean. Further the list is arbitrary, no mention of PTSD, specific phobias or social anxiety disorder. IAPT has I think the record on ‘Noise’, with no published kappa’s – a measure of interrater reliability.


Dr Mike Scott

The Entire IAPT Process Is Based on Deception

Is it possible to stop fake psychological therapy by telling the truth? The client is at a railway station to board a train to where he/she knows not, but seeking a better life. They may have arrived at the station under their own steam and/or at the promptings of family/friends/GP. But the ‘trip advisors’  have rarely visited/evaluated the destinations. In social psychology terms the advisors have not engaged in effortful central processing of outcome data. Bypassing the latter with a heuristic (peripheral processing) that the IAPT service’ must be good because it is NHS/Government funded and in any case the mental health burden will be shared out’.


The client believes that they will encounter mental health professionals who can reliably diagnose and treat whatever disorder they have. But nobody told them the service does not make diagnoses [IAPT Manual (2019). At the 30 minute telephone assessment the Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner does not tell them that: a) they are not trained to diagnose b) nor trained to provide psychological therapy and c) in the first instance they will likely undergo low intensity CBT of undetermined potency in treating depression and the anxiety disorders. The deception makes for easy boarding of the IAPT train. The PWPs cram the clients onto the train by using low intensity interventions but unsurprisingly 69% of PWPs suffer burnout, whilst the rate of burnout amongst high intensity therapists is 50% [ Westwood et al (2018)] . To help mitigate their stressors the PWPs have regular supervision, but this to is a deception, as they often have less than 3 minutes to discuss a case. Over a third (38%) [Psychological Therapies Annual Report (2020-2021)] of clients get off the train before their 2nd treatment session, but that is not at places where they want to be. Nobody told them at the start of this level of dissatisfaction. Likewise nobody told them only the tip of the iceberg reach a destination where they have lost their diagnostic status Scott (2018), 9 out of 10 remain at square one. But IAPT keeps up the pretence advising the ‘trip advisors’ and Clinical Commissioning Groups of a 50% recovery rate. A million a year now enter the IAPT gates. It is difficult to escape the parallel as to how people were conned into Auschwitz.


Dr Mike Scott

Antidepressants and CBT in The Real World

A 24%  response rate combining the two, and manual driven psychotherapy conferred no added benefit Bartova et al (2021). In the podcast from Mad In America these findings are set against a 31% placebo response rate. Further no evidence that the interventions altered the course of a disorder, which is the prime objective of treatments for physical disorders. Rather the focus was on symptomatic relief. Articles covered in podcast include:


Pies and Dawson (2022) have today taken up the cudgel to attack the findings of Moncrieff et al (2002) that were the springboard for the podcast. But they are disingenuous in claiming that no one of academic credibility has ever suggested that low serotonin causes depression. For decades, at least in the UK this has been the dominant message given to patients, with the implication that they need antidepressants to restore the chemical imbalance. Pies and Dawson (2022) have recourse to a biopsychosocial model which posits interactions of thoughts, feelings, social factors and biology, in which will be found some biological factor that is of key importance in the development of depression and through which antidepressants will be found to work. But given the track record to date this seems unlikely and provides little basis for current pharmacological practice with the exception of the use of lithium. 

In the Bartova et al (2021) study the therapists claimed that they were adhering to a manual driven psychotherapy protocol, but no fidelity checks were made. A  similar scenario to the claim made by IAPT in the UK that it delivers CBT, but without any independent corroboration. It is I believe the case that CBT can make a real world difference for depression and the anxiety disorders if appropriately delivered.


Dr Mike Scott

What Is The Simplest Explanation of How Clients Fare In The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Service?


The philosophical principle of Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanations are usually the correct one. Most will present to IAPT at their worst and there will be some improvement with the passage of time and attention. But clients could just as easily have benefitted from attending the Citizens Advice Bureaux,  i.e there is no added benefit from IAPT. Last year over a third (38%) of those who accessed the IAPT service attended one or less treatment session, and it is unlikely that they would benefit from such a sub-therapeutic dose of therapy.  The suspicion is therefore that IAPT doesn’t work. If one tries to explain the therapeutic gains of defaulters (defined by IAPT as attending less than 2 treatment sessions) from the Service, complexity enters. The confusion is not lessened when one tries to explain how it is that completer’s attending on average of 7.5 sessions, apparently make gains comparable to those in randomised controlled trials, with just half the number of sessions! IAPT’s claims beggar belief.

CBT is allegedly ubiquitous in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service. Overall a 50% recovery rate is claimed. How then is it effective with one out of two completers of treatment but also ineffective with one out of two? We enter the black hole again.

It is axiomatic amongst CBT adherents that negative cognitions and avoidance behaviours perpetuate negative emotional states. It is further assumed that targeting these maintaining agents will resolve the negative emotional state. But this latter scenario will only unfold if the negative cognitions and avoidance behaviours are pivotal in the onset of the negative emotional state. If a person is suffering from, say chronic fatigue syndrome the salience of negative cognitions and avoidance behaviours may be questionable. The biopsychosocial model of CFS advanced by Deary et al 2007 is of such complexity, that no aetiological agent e.g child neglect, could be ruled out. Applying Occam’s Razor the likelihood is that a primary physical basis for CFS will be found or that it actually covers a range of disorders each with a different biological base. 

In the case of depression negative life events and neuroticism are strong predictors. But neuroticism could be the driver for negative cognitions and avoidance behaviours. However neuroticism itself maybe a product of a particular style of engaging in mental time travel, in which negative events are given a particular salience and homage is paid to them with avoidance behaviour. It is scarcely credible that 7-8 sessions of CBT therapy will nullify the effects of neuroticism/mental time travel for a period that the client would see as clinically meaningful e.g 8 weeks.

Dr Mike Scott

When is evidence based practice not evidence based practice?

When it is not using the latest evidence. An article in the Cognitive Behaviour Therapist, much lauded by the Editor of the Journal, highlights this. There was no review of the latest group CBT for PTSD outcome studies see Scott (2022) Personalising Trauma Treatment: Reframing and Reimagining London: Routledge. Instead the authors relied upon the conflicted, dated, recommendations of guideline producers. Guidelines are  produced by Committee decisions with all the vagaries that entails, they are not the results of a systematic analysis of data. My book includes  a review of group CBT outcome studies for PTSD (reproduced at the end of this blog), indicating the inferiority of a group approach.


In this study of group CBT for PTSD, the results of 3, 8 session (2hrs per session) group programmes are summarised by the treating IAPT workers. But no standardised diagnostic interview was used at any point, so it is unknown what proportion of people lost their diagnostic status for how long. Nor whether they were truly suffering from PTSD in the first place, making independent replication impossible. It is claimed that the treatment was given to those who ‘preferred’ group therapy but this is disingenuous. In practice people are offered more immediate treatment with a group or a long wait for individual therapy, whilst they may opt for the former, it is not a preference. 

8 is The New Magic Number

The tail is wagging the dog, in that the authors have fitted in with the growing fetish for 8 sessions. Those who complete IAPT treatment typically have 7.5 sessions. Further NICE recommend, 8 group CBT therapy sessions for depression as the first line treatment for depression. But there is no empirical evidence that 8 sessions of anything makes a real-world difference. It is simply what the powers that be have decided to ration out. There is no indication of the mechanism of action of 8 sessions. If it is not possible to specify how a claimed result is achieved then the latter is suspect. BABCP has just celebrated its 50th birthday by a return to magic.

Group Treatments

Groups are an attractive option for service providers, offering the prospect of reduced waiting lists and greater access to therapy. But comparisons of group interventions show them to be inferior to individual therapy post-trauma and to offer no added benefit to treatment as usual. Kearney et al. (2021) compared the effectiveness of group cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for the treatment of PTSD with group loving-kindness meditation (LKM) which involved the silent repetition of phrases intended to elicit feelings of kindness for oneself and others. The proportion of veterans who lost their diagnostic status i.e. who no longer suffered from PTSD did not differ at the end of treatment (CPT – 29%, LKM – 27.5%). Each intervention consisted of 12 weekly 90-minute group sessions but the mean number sessions completed was only six in CPT and seven in LKM. Resick et al. (2017) found that in a population of veterans group CPT was inferior to individual CPT. Preparatory group treatment for CPT or prolonged exposure does not enhance outcome. Dedert et al. (2020) examined whether a preparatory group with a focus on psychoeducation, coping skills, sleep hygiene and an introduction to PTSD treatment options added benefit to the trauma-focussed interventions, it did not. Further, those who went through a preparatory group did less well than those who did not in whatever trauma-focussed CBT they went onto in terms of PTSD symptom reduction. There is no evidence that initial Stabilisation Groups contribute to treatment effectiveness. However, the aforementioned studies were all on veterans, so care has to be taken in generalising from the results. But a study by Mahoney et al. (2020) of women prisoners who reported a history of interpersonal violence and trauma found that a ten-session group psychoeducational programme, Survive and Thrive, conferred no benefit over treatment as usual.

There appears to be no benefit to a phase-based approach, in which the first phase has as its goal safety and stabilisation, despite the inherent attractiveness of this option.

Scott, Michael J. Personalising Trauma Treatment (p. 293). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.



CBT Outcome Studies – An Example of The Problems of Generalisation

The problems of generalising from CBT randomised controlled trials can be illustrated by examining the following just published study from Clark et al (2022):


  1. All patients were referred by an Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) Service if they were thought to be suffering from social anxiety disorder(SAD). But following detailed diagnostic assessment only one half were found to be suffering from the disorder. Thus it seems likely that IAPT staff, left to their own devices, would have provided inappropriate treatment for one in two patients.
  2. IAPT staff do not make assessments using standardised diagnostic interviews, so that there can  be no certainty that the results of this, or any other credible randomised controlled trial, would translate into routine practice.
  3. The three treatment  clinicians involved in the trial involved were experienced, well known clinical psychologists, unlike the therapists in routine practice. It is unlikely the latter would achieve the same outcome as the former.
  4. In the study internet delivered CBT and standard CBT were the active comparisons and the results set against a waiting list control condition. But patients on a waiting list do not expect to get better and this comparotor has therefore been termed a nocebo. Given such able clinicians, it is possible that, if they had provided an alternative treatment with a credible rationale e.g ‘managing shyness/better mixing’ with equal attention the results would not have been appreciably different. The chances of this are increased by Clark et al (2022) finding that many of the standard components of the original CBT, such as accompanying the patient to social experiments were found to be redundant.   
  5. The study authors were evaluating, the computerised CBT program that they had developed. But no mention that the study  requires independent replication because of the possibility of allegiance bias. Interestingly the authors report no conflict of interest. 
  6. The study required patients to have internet access and almost two thirds had higher education. The results may not be applicable in forgotten towns.
  7. Patients were required to have SAD as their main problem, but patients typically see themselves as having a range of difficulties and want treatment for all. In this study 30% were found to be suffering from depression. But strangely, overall the pre-treatment mean on the PHQ9 was below the cut off of 10 usually used to denote a case of depression. Further this score is much lower than the initial mean of PHQ9 scores in the IAPT population.  This creates doubts about the level of functional impairment in this population. 
  8. On the surface the study results are remarkable with 70%+ recovering from SAD and avoidant personality disorder. But the primary outcome measure was a composite of loss of diagnostic status and achieving below cut-off scores on several SAD self-report measures. There could be no certainty that the components of the composite were equally important to each patient, nor that the frequencies of say loss of diagnostic status and below cut off scores matched. The hazards of using composites has been highlighted by McCoy (2018).
  9. Patients see recovery as being free of a disorder for a meaningful length of time. Given that persistent SAD is defined in the DSM as having the disorder for at least 6months. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that a primary outcome measure should have been being free of SAD for at least 6 months. This would have been a real world change.

This study is a salutary tale about the marketing of CBT – the takeaway message in the title is that the cost of one intervention(internet CBT) is half the cost of standard CBT. This is not to say that CBT is not of limited utility with depression and the anxiety disorders (including OCD and PTSD) but we need to assess what is of real world importance to the patient.


Dr Mike Scott

1 in 7 Taking Antidepressants Despite Increased Access To Psychological Therapy

Maybe the antidepressants and/or psychological therapy  are  not making a real-world difference? Is it more likely than not, that one or other of these treatments works? I do not think that I could prove either to a Court’s satisfaction. Attempts to deliver them are taking a terrible toll, with a focus on Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) rather than the client’s story. Taking these treatments in turn:


Antidepressants. There has been a doubling of the prescription of antidepressants  from 2006 to 2016, followed by increases in the prescription of antidepressants for 6 years [BBC News, July 9th 2022]. The BBC News  confidently asserted that a major study proved antidepressants work, citing a link to a study published by Cipriani et al in (2018) in the Lancet. But it was only in a footnote that the BBC reporter acknowledged that the meta analysis covered, predominantly studies that looked at the effects of taking the medication for 8 weeks. There is no evidence that antidepressants alter the course of a persons mental health. Journalists like to give a human angle, and so the BBC presented an individual who had benefitted from antidepressants. But equally, I could have furnished an example of a guy I saw recently with depression as a consequence of being unable to do his manual job, because of a physical injury, who has been prescribed various SSRI’s and he has lost his libido, with a deleterious effect on his long term relationship and no loss of diagnostic status. One cannot rely on anecdotes to bolster the claim for either antidepressants or psychological therapy.

Psychological Therapy.  Billions of £’s have been spent on the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) Programme over the last decade.  But there has been no publicly funded independent audit of IAPT. Why? Vested interests and a deep desire to believe that antidepressants and IAPT ‘must’ be making a difference. I examined the effectiveness of CBT in routine practice for 90 IAPT clients in the course of my work as an Expert Witness to the Court Scott (2018) and found that only the tip of the iceberg recovered (i.e lost their diagnostic status) using a ‘gold standard’ semi-structured interview. Further it mattered not whether they were treated before or after their personal injury. It has been said that human beings can only take so much reality, if so, following the scientific edict to ‘follow the data’ is likely to prove more aspirational than actual.  

I cannot see any Expert Witness clearing an, on the balance of probability threshold, with regard to either of these interventions, as delivered in routine practice, in a British Court. 


Dr Mike Scott



NICE Rubber Stamps Business as Usual

despite the fact that the main provider of psychological services, the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) Service is ‘An Abject Failure’ It is all about cost, with no regard for evidence. It is recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (June 29th) that clients are offered 11 possible interventions for depression, presenting the least costly first, guided self-help, group cognitive behavioural therapy (8 sessions) progressing up to the 11th option, short term psychodynamic psychotherapy. With Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners (PWPs) providing the assessment and the least costly interventions. But PWPs are not trained therapists and the IAPT Manual states that its’ employees do not make diagnoses and they are not trained to diagnose. Yet bizarrely NICE states that assessors must be competent to make a reliable assessment of depression! A pig’s ear of monumental proportions. 

There is no empirical evidence that 8 sessions of group CBT delivered by PWPs makes a real world difference to client’s lives as assessed by a blind assessor. Nor that the recommended 8 sessions of individual CBT for depression, presumably delivered by a high intensity therapists, constitutes a therapeutic dose of treatment. 

The revision of the Draft Nice Guidance on Depression now recommends a stepped care approach to depression and sees Psychological Wellbeing Practitioners as contributing to treatment. This has brought a ‘hurrah’ from BABCP (British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy),  as it is exactly what they lobbied for post the Draft guidelines. Dr Andrew Beck the BABCP President proclaims in the press release ‘the guidedInes highlight the amazing value of PWPs’.  In addition antidepressants and CBT in combination are seen as the treatment choice for severe depression.

But these recommendations and changes are eminence-based not evidence-based. A paper published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research last year by Bartova et al (2021) showed a 25% response rate for those who had antidepressants and manual-driven psychotherapy (mostly CBT), no better than antidepressants alone. This compares with a 31% response rate in those given a placebo Rutherford and Roose (2013)

Before BABCP issued the press release, I raised the following issues with its’ author Professor Reynolds:

  1. I can find no randomised control trials of low intensity interventions that are methodologically robust enough to lead to the conclusion that such interventions should be the initial treatment of choice for less severe depression.
  1. I can find no evidence that as a result of stepped care, the trajectory of clients with depression Is meaningfully better than if they were not treated in a stepped care model.
  2. There was criticism of the initial draft for the ‘marginalising and undervaluing of PWPS’. However, it appears that under pressure from BABCP, PWPS are now to be lauded. But there is an absence of evidence of what PWP treatment works for whom and in what circumstances. As such their interventions are not evidence- based. Further they are not psychological therapists.
  1. NICE have apparently indicated that the IAPT database may be used to inform the next set of guidelines. But this database tells us nothing of the course of any client’s disorder as the service does not make diagnoses or engage in long-term follow up.

I asked that my dissent from BABCPs press release be publicly noted, and was told simply that it would be passed to the BABCP Board. At the same time the comments of IAPTs lead, Professor Clark. on the importance of including relapse prevention in treatments, would be included in the press release and it was.  An in-group clearly operates. I am reminded that when I submitted an article to the BABCP comic, CBT Today on IAPT, the article was rejected not by the editor but by the past (Prof Salkovskis) and current (Dr Andrew Beck) Presidents of BABCP. The matter was never addressed by the Board despite an assurance from Dr Beck. If ever there was a clique. Unholy alliances rule.

Dr Mike Scott