False economy? Half of “low intensity” CBT clients relapse within 12 months

Members Of Support Group Sitting In Chairs Having Meeting
Low-intensity CBT can include group-guided self-help, computerised CBT and telephone support

By Christian Jarrett

Heralded as a revolution in mental health care – a cost-effective way to deliver evidence-based psychological help to large numbers – low-intensity Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is recommended by NICE, the independent health advisory body in England and Wales, for mild to moderate depression and anxiety and is a key part of the “Improving Access to Psychological Therapies” programme in those countries. Prior studies into its effectiveness have been promising. However, little research has looked at whether the benefits last.

A new study in Behaviour Research and Therapy has done that, following a cohort of people with depression and anxiety over time. Disappointingly, the team led by Shehzad Ali at the University of York, found that after completing low-intensity CBT, more than one in two service users had relapsed within 12 months.

Low-intensity CBT is based on the same principles as full or high-intensity CBT – clients reflect on and strive to change their habits of thought that could be contributing to their mental distress, and they also learn coping strategies and other skills. However, it’s delivered in such a way as to reduce the need for extended one-on-one time with a qualified psychotherapist. It typically incorporates self-help books and internet exercises, usually completed under the guidance of a “well-being practitioner” or coach who is trained to follow a highly structured programme rather than having any formal psychotherapy training.

To test the longer term outcomes for low-intensity CBT, Ali and his colleagues recruited hundreds of people at a primary care service in West Yorkshire in England. The participants were diagnosed with depression or anxiety, or both, and had enrolled in low-intensity CBT. Some dropped out prematurely and were not included in further analysis.

For current purposes, the researchers were interested in the 439 participants who had recovered during their low-intensity CBT (improvements in their symptoms meant they no longer met the diagnosis for anxiety or depression) and who had ended their course of treatment in agreement with their practitioner or coach – on average this was after seven contacts with their practitioner, including the initial assessment. For comparison, high-intensity CBT with a psychotherapist can last up to 20 sessions.

After finishing their low-intensity CBT, the recovered participants (average age 41, 60 per cent were female, over 90 per cent were white British) completed monthly questionnaires that measured their levels of anxiety and depression symptoms. As time went on, an increasing proportion of the participants showed evidence of having relapsed – that is, their symptoms had deteriorated to a point that suggested they would likely be diagnosed as having anxiety or depression again. By twelve months after the end of their low-intensity CBT, nearly 53 per cent had relapsed; half of these relapses had occurred within two months, 80 per cent within six months (for comparison, a meta-analysis of high-intensity CBT found that 29 per cent of recovered clients with depression had relapsed within 12 months, which is a better outcome than for patients who stop taking anti-depressants) .

Is it possible to predict who is likely to relapse? In the current study, recovered participants who still showed some symptoms of depression at the end of their course of low-intensity CBT (but not enough to justify a diagnosis) were far more likely to relapse over the ensuing year. Residual anxiety symptoms were not predictive in this way. The finding for residual depression symptoms suggests many low-intensity CBT users would benefit from some kind of on-going after care, such as booster sessions or other lower-intensity support.

“It seems hasty to consider patients ‘recovered’ at the point of discharge without assessing full remission symptoms over a longer period,” Ali and his colleagues concluded. “It could be argued that many of the relapse cases in this study actually had partial (rather than full) remission at the time of treatment completion, and thus never actually ‘recovered'”.

The findings from this study will fuel the fears of some experts that low-intensity CBT is a form of false economising. It may be quick and cheap but the results suggest that many people are being sent on their way before they are fully recovered.

One counter to that argument is that prior to the roll out of low-intensity CBT, many of the kinds of people who took part in this research (i.e. people with mild to moderate mental health problems) would have received no treatment at all or given powerful drugs. They might have spent months or years on a waiting list for a psychotherapist, during which time their problems may well have worsened. Another point to bear in mind was that this research was conducted in just one service in England, and more research is needed in other areas.

“It is clear that relapse prevention is an overlooked aspect of routine stepped care in Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and an important area for further policy and research developments,” the researchers said.

How durable is the effect of low intensity CBT for depression and anxiety? Remission and relapse in a longitudinal cohort study

Christian Jarrett (@Psych_Writer) is Editor of BPS Research Digest

11 thoughts on “False economy? Half of “low intensity” CBT clients relapse within 12 months”

  1. Sad but true. People are not given relapse as there is no time allowed for it

  2. Your headline ‘False Economy?’ is very apt. There has been no study of low intensity CBT (LICBT) in the UK, that has been conducted with the same methodological rigour as the bench-marking, disorder specific, studies of CBT that led to the latters’ wide acclaim. LICBT fails ‘trading standards’ [Scott (2017) ‘Towards a Mental Health System that Works’ and cbtwatch.com].

    Ali et al (2017) looked at low intensity IAPT clients who had remitted by the end of treatment and found that half had relapsed within 12 months. Far from suggesting that this sounds like a ‘failed experiment’ the authors suggest that the programme should be simply amended to include relapse prevention despite stating earlier in the paper that relapse prevention was part of the protocol! Some weeks ago I wrote a Rejoinder to the paper which is currently being considered for publication in Behavior Research and Therapy.

  3. Is anxiety/depression merely an incident which can potentially be cured and then forgotten, or is it a latent characteristic which can easily be reawakened by circumstances? If the latter then the patient needs to be taught ongoing techniques as a way of life. I find that if I become slack in my use of mindfulness (10 minutes a day) my sense of stress gradually increases — and warns me to get back to my regular meditation.. .

    1. There can be a range of reasons for relapse and also applies to high intensity CBT and other treatments such as EMDR. It is concerning relapse is not always covered by all clinicians which is recommended by Nice. I blame the NHS for its obsessions with targets and when needs outstrip resources as there is a shortage of low intensity workers in the main and often poorly trained by university that promotes the concept of one size fits all. Short 4-6 sessions recommend by NHS Iapt needs to be reviewed as this contribute to the reported poor outcomes.

      1. John, I fully agree with your comments. I worked as a low intensity worker for 18 months and was the only trainee who had personal experience of mental health problems having suffered and recovered from my own bouts of anxiety and depression. I became disillusioned with the obsession of getting people off the waiting list at any cost so that the figures looked good to secure future funding. I knew the benefits of after care and relapse prevention but resources did not allow for this. My personal experience proved to be helpful when working with clients and truly understanding their needs but because I was unable to complete a university qualification I had to leave.

  4. Regrettably I have only just spotted this piece but wanted to still add a comment.
    I too was as a low intensity worker several years ago, however I was fortunate that the IAPT service I joined was set up in a prison and therefore (at the time) was less at the mercy of the targets set in the community, which as others have pointed out are often non-compliant with NICE and the original IAPT development work. As a result we were free to offer relapse work. Despite natural concerns that this may ‘open the floodgates’, in actuality almost all of our re-referrals needed only a very brief re-assessment which took the form of formulating their new situation and prompting them to consider what skills they had put into place to achieve recovery the first time. For most patients seeking further work, this brief re-assessment was sufficient.
    My point is that rather than avoiding it for fear of raising service costs, commissioners should consider the possibility that offering ‘relapse’ work may make a service more effective by supporting patients to refresh their skills and confidence in their self management, rather than contributing to an escalation of a problem by shutting and bolting the door once a patient has been discharged.

  5. The concept of relapse makes it sounds like the suffering person has some internal issue or fault that a therapist has somehow fixed lets call this a sticking plaster – so now we think a piece of paper with some ‘insights’ into the persons ‘dysfunctional’ thoughts, attitudes, behaviours and beliefs is somehow going to stop them becoming ‘ill’ again – how is it possible to be a therapist and honestly appraise what we do and not conclude that we’re engaged in a fictional story about what is and what is not possible in a few hours of talking and listening with someone in the confines of a therapy room – utterly devoid of context and soaked through with both therapist and client bias, blind spots, power imbalance, people pleasing, and self interest.
    some honesty about our fake friendships would be so good to see

Comments are closed.