Understanding the psychological therapy treatment outcomes for young adults who are not in education, employment, or training (NEET), moderators of outcomes, and what might be done to improve them.

BACKGROUND: To determine: whether young adults (aged 18-24) not in education, employment or training (NEET) have different psychological treatment outcomes to other young adults; any socio-demographic or treatment-related moderators of differential outcomes; and whether service-level changes are associated with better outcomes for those who are NEET. METHODS: A cohort was formed of 20 293 young adults treated with psychological therapies in eight Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services. Pre-treatment characteristics, outcomes, and moderators of differential outcomes were compared for those who were and were not NEET. Associations between outcomes and the following were assessed for those that were NEET: missing fewer sessions, attending more sessions, having a recorded diagnosis, and waiting fewer days between referral and starting treatment. RESULTS: Those who were NEET had worse outcomes: odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for reliable recovery = 0.68 (0.63-0.74), for deterioration = 1.41 (1.25-1.60), and for attrition = 1.31 (1.19-1.43). Ethnic minority participants that were NEET had better outcomes than those that were White and NEET. Living in deprived areas was associated with worse outcomes. The intensity of treatment (high or low) did not moderate outcomes, but having more sessions was associated with improved outcomes for those that were NEET: odds (per one-session increase) of reliable recovery = 1.10 (1.08-1.12), deterioration = 0.94 (0.91-0.98), and attrition = 0.68 (0.66-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Earlier treatment, supporting those that are NEET to attend sessions, and in particular, offering them more sessions before ending treatment might be effective in improving clinical outcomes. Additional support when working with White young adults that are NEET and those in more deprived areas may also be important.

Are students less likely to respond to routinely delivered psychological treatment? A retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety disorders are increasingly prevalent among university students, making the provision of effective treatment in this population a priority. Whilst campus-based services provide some psychological treatments, many students are treated by routine adult psychological treatment services which have no focus or adaptations to treatment for student populations. We aimed to compare psychological treatment outcomes between university students and young adults (aged 18-25) in employment to explore whether routinely delivered psychological interventions are equally effective for these groups, or whether students report poorer outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was formed of 19,707 patients treated by eight National Health Service (NHS) Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in England. Associations between student status (compared to same-age employed adults) and psychological treatment outcomes were explored using logistic regression models. Models were adjusted for important treatment, clinical and demographic characteristics, and propensity score matching was used to explore the robustness of effects. RESULTS: Students and the employed comparison group were similar on baseline characteristics at assessment, but students were less likely to reliably recover (OR = 0.90 [95% CI = 0.83;0.96]) and reliably improve (OR = 0.91 [95% CI = 0.84;0.98]) by the end of treatment in fully adjusted models. Students and the employed group did not differ regarding the likelihood of deterioration (OR = 0.89 [95% CI = 0.78;1.02]) or treatment dropout (OR = 1.01 [95% CI = 0.93;1.11]). CONCLUSIONS: Students appear at risk of poorer outcomes compared to employed younger adults when treated in routine psychological treatment services. Students may require additional support and treatment adaptations that account for student-specific stressors as this might improve psychological treatment outcomes.

Improvement in IAPT outcomes over time: are they driven by changes in clinical practice?

Treatment outcomes across Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in England have improved year-on-year, with the national average proportion of patients in recovery at the end of treatment now exceeding the 50% target. This is despite the number of referrals and numbers of treated patients also increasing year-on-year, suggesting that services have evolved local practices and treatment delivery to meet needs whilst improving performance. This study explores whether there have been changes in clinical practice with regard to: (1) the number of sessions and length of treatments; (2) the number of cancellations and non-attendance; and (3) the recording of problem descriptor information, and the association with treatment outcomes in IAPT. Routinely collected data from seven IAPT services involved in the North and Central East London (NCEL) IAPT Service Improvement and Research Network (SIRN) were brought together to form a dataset of nearly 88,000 patients who completed a course of IAPT treatment. Results showed that there was a slight increase in the average number of sessions, and decreases in the length of time in treatment, as well as decreases in both the number of non-attended appointments and the use of inappropriate problem descriptors. These findings highlight a number of areas where potentially small changes to clinical practice may have had positive effects on patient outcomes. The value of using IAPT data to inform service improvement evaluations is discussed. KEY LEARNING AIMS: (1)How changes to treatment-delivery factors are associated with IAPT patient outcomes.(2)The link between clinical practice and potential service performance.(3)How analysing routinely collected data can be used to inform service improvement.