|dc.identifier.citation||Twomey, C;O'Reilly, G;Byrne, M; Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression in primary care: a meta-analysis Family Practice September 2014||en_GB|
|dc.description||Background. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is increasingly being delivered in primary
care, in a variety of delivery formats such as guided self-help CBT, telephone-based CBT, computerized
CBT and standard, one-to-one CBT. However, the vast majority of research has focused
on CBT in specialized services, and no previous meta-analysis has examined CBT’s effectiveness
across delivery formats in primary care.
Objective. To determine the effectiveness of multi-modal CBT (i.e. CBT across delivery formats)
for symptoms of anxiety and depression, in primary care.
Methods. A meta-analysis of CBT-focused RCTs, for symptoms of anxiety or depression, in primary
care. The authors searched four databases. To be included, RCTs had to be set in primary
care or have primary care participants.
Results. Twenty-nine RCTs were included in three separate meta-analyses. Results showed
multi-modal CBT was more effective than no primary care treatment (d =0.59), and primary
care treatment-as-usual (TAU) (d = 0.48) for anxiety and depression symptoms. Moreover, multimodal
CBT in addition to primary care TAU was shown to be more effective than primary care
TAU for depression symptoms (no comparisons of this kind were available for anxiety) (d = 0.37).
Conclusions. The results from conducted meta-analyses indicate that multi-modal CBT is effective
for anxiety and depression symptoms in primary care. Furthermore, based on CBT’s economic
viability, increasing the provision of CBT in primary care seems justified. Future research
should examine if varying levels of qualification among primary care CBT practitioners impacts
on the effectiveness of CBT in this setting.||en_GB|
|dc.subject||COGNITIVE BEHAVIOURAL THERAPY (CBT)||en_GB|
|dc.title||Effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety and depression in primary care: a meta-analysis||en_GB|
|dc.type||Article In Press||en|
|dc.contributor.department||School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland, bSchool of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK, cPsychology Department, Health Service Executive Dublin Mid-Leinster, Offaly, Ireland||en_GB|