Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Evidence for the effectiveness of brief, talking therapies in general
practice is lacking. Patients are reluctant to take part in randomised
trials when they have no choice over what psychological treatment they
might receive. Ward et al (p 1383) compared non-directive counselling
and cognitive-behaviour therapy with usual general practitioner care
for depressed patients. The trial was designed so that patients with
strong preferences for a particular therapy were able to receive it,
while the remainder were randomised. Patients receiving a talking
therapy were less depressed after four months than those who continued
only to see their general practitioner, but by 12 months all patients
had done equally well. There were no differences in outcome between
patients in either therapy arm or between those randomised to therapy
or choosing their therapy. In a parallel cost-effective
analysis Bower et al (p 1389) found that, despite more rapid
improvement in the first four months in patients receiving a
psychological therapy, there were no significant differences in direct
costs, production losses, or societal costs between the three
treatments at either four or 12 months. These findings must be
considered preliminary, given the low power of the cost calculations.
On this evidence, however, commissioners of services may decide on
service configuration based on factors other than outcomes and costs,
such as staff and patient preferences or staff availability.