Background
The Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme has been impactful in increasing access to psychological therapies at primary care level. However, it remains unclear whether IAPT’s widely disseminated achievements include the reduction in service users’ transition to secondary care services and whether IAPT services are providing interventions that match the level of complexity of presenting problems of those who are referred.
Aims
This review sets out to clarify the clinical characteristics of IAPT cohorts, whether the interventions provided target these characteristics, and whether outcomes are related to the use of the stepped-care model advocated in the operationalization of IAPT services.
Method
A systematic literature search was undertaken on PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Embase using the terms: IAPT, anxiety, and depression.
Results
Of 472 paper identified, 24 articles were deemed pertinent. It appears that IAPT cohorts are complex and current service delivery frameworks may not meet their needs. IAPT developments and research for long-term physical health conditions and serious mental illness have been recently advocated, though whether these are sufficient and viable when set in IAPT’s prescriptive backdrop remains unclear.
Conclusions
Improving Access to Psychological Therapies provision and research at present does not adequately consider the complexity of its clientele in the context of treatment outcomes and service delivery. Recommendations are provided for future research and practice to tackle these deficiencies.
Practitioner Points
Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) has significantly increased access to psychological therapies within primary care over the last decade, though it is unclear whether its interventions are sufficiently tailored to meet the actual levels of complexity of its clientele and prevent them from needing onward referral to secondary care as originally envisaged.
Given the ongoing focus on and investment in IAPT informed developments into long-term conditions and serious mental illness, this review considers whether additional elucidation of the model’s original objectives is required, as a precursor to its expansion into other clinical areas.
The review indicates that there is a stark lack of data pertaining to the generalisable, real-world clinical benefits of the IAPT programme as it currently stands.
Recommendations are provided for future areas of research, and practice enhancements to ensure the value of IAPT services to clients in the wider context of NHS mental health services, including the interface with secondary care, are considered.