a study by Barkham and Stone https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-018-1899-0 of over 33,000 IAPT cases has revealed high intensity counselling as being the most cost effective, requiring on average just 6 sessions compared to the 9 sessions for high intensity CBT, to achieve the same result. But the NICE Guidance recommends CBT as the first line treatment not only for depression http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg90 but also the common anxiety disorders. In the 2 years since the published study, IAPT appears not to have considered that there is likely something wrong with its’ data set when it provokes a conclusion at variance with the NICE Guidance. However it is IAPT that has muscle at the coal face, not NICE. The juggernaut of IAPT carries on, paying lip service to NICE Guidelines to placate NHS England and local Clinical Commissioning Groups.
The Barkham and Stone study also suggests that whatever of the 4 trajectories clients take in IAPT: 1. high intensity counselling (9%) 2. high intensity cbt (18%) 3. low intensity cbt followed by high intensity counselling (20%) 4. low intensity cut followed by high intensity cut (53%) there is no difference in outcome, all improve by 6 points on the PHQ9 each starting off at a score of 15. This would suggest that there are no meaningful distinctions between the categories and that the stepped care approach bears no fruit. Yet IAPT continues with stepped care. IAPT fails on quality control, it can provide no meaningful data with regard to treatment integrity i.e a guarantee that an evidence based protocol has been followed for a reliably identified disorder. Nor can it provide any evidence that the observed changes of score would not have happened with the passage of time and attention (an active placebo).
Regrettably IAPT, markets itself superbly with Ontario in Canada being the latest to be conned by the IAPT model, when will people wake up and smell the coffee.
Dr Mike Scott
2 replies on “IAPT 10 NICE Guidance 0”
Hi Dr Scott — I am a patient rep on Health Quality Ontario’s Patient and Family Advisory Council, and with Patients for Patient Safety Canada — can you please point me toward the info about IAPT being adopted in Ontario?
This is just one of the links to Ontario and IAPT https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/patricia-tomasi/ontarios-new-psychotherapy-funding-still-doesnt-address-some-big-issues_a_23233969/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK_t2m3Pkp6NzUAgVnSuKqqeWnZvvqJGDwhmdhth0mhKGCDoaYQh11uqKCzJT2Xll2NW-kryU9QceyFZw_wKc58e587K85l5bn2gYhXfDQeDhl6ZsIqyCWoYQwKdejiPUH22EqbIa2UUSQxkdOMbl_nw264uWjW1F9T5mhNbmFPo there is another more recent one about funding that I can’t quite locate