The recent economic evaluation of an Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service conducted by Mukuria and colleagues Reference Mukuria, Brazier, Barkham, Connell, Hardy and Hutten1 is a welcome addition to the evidence base pertaining to this programme. This was a non-randomised comparison but it appears that the authors have used appropriate methods to control for differences between areas. A casual reading of the abstract conclusion would lead one to assume that IAPT is likely to be cost-effective. Indeed, the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) is below the upper threshold used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), and below the lower threshold in a sensitivity analysis where the EQ-5D was used. However, the cost per QALY is somewhat misleading. The most useful results from this study are the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves shown in Fig. 2. Here it is revealed that at the NICE upper threshold of £30 000 per QALY, there is about a 38% likelihood that IAPT is cost-effective, increasing to just over 50% if the EQ-5D is used to generate QALYs. If the lower threshold is used, then there is even less chance that IAPT is cost-effective. The overall conclusion of this paper should be based on Fig. 2 and it should be that on the basis of this study IAPT was probably not cost-effective.
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Baldwin, David S
Anderson, Ian M
Nutt, David J
Allgulander, Christer
Bandelow, Borwin
den Boer, Johan A
Christmas, David M
Davies, Simon
Fineberg, Naomi
Lidbetter, Nicky
Malizia, Andrea
McCrone, Paul
Nabarro, Daniel
O’Neill, Catherine
Scott, Jan
van der Wee, Nic
and
Wittchen, Hans-Ulrich
2014.
Evidence-based pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder: A revision of the 2005 guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology.
Journal of Psychopharmacology,
Vol. 28,
Issue. 5,
p.
403.
Stern, Julian
Hard, Emily
and
Rock, Brian
2015.
Paradigms, politics and pragmatics: psychotherapy in primary care in City and Hackney – a new model for the NHS.
Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy,
Vol. 29,
Issue. 2,
p.
117.
Thornicroft, Graham
2018.
Improving access to psychological therapies in England.
The Lancet,
Vol. 391,
Issue. 10121,
p.
636.
Pickersgill, Martyn
2019.
Access, accountability, and the proliferation of psychological therapy: On the introduction of the IAPT initiative and the transformation of mental healthcare.
Social Studies of Science,
Vol. 49,
Issue. 4,
p.
627.
Richards, Derek
Enrique, Angel
Eilert, Nora
Franklin, Matthew
Palacios, Jorge
Duffy, Daniel
Earley, Caroline
Chapman, Judith
Jell, Grace
Sollesse, Sarah
and
Timulak, Ladislav
2020.
A pragmatic randomized waitlist-controlled effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trial of digital interventions for depression and anxiety.
npj Digital Medicine,
Vol. 3,
Issue. 1,
Steen, Scott
2020.
A cost-benefit analysis of the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme using its key defining outcomes.
Journal of Health Psychology,
Vol. 25,
Issue. 13-14,
p.
2487.
Ekkekakis, Panteleimon
2021.
Why Is Exercise Underutilized in Clinical Practice Despite Evidence It Is Effective? Lessons in Pragmatism From the Inclusion of Exercise in Guidelines for the Treatment of Depression in the British National Health Service.
Kinesiology Review,
Vol. 10,
Issue. 1,
p.
29.
Faheem, Afsana
2023.
‘It’s been quite a poor show’ – exploring whether practitioners working for Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services are culturally competent to deal with the needs of Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities.
The Cognitive Behaviour Therapist,
Vol. 16,
Issue. ,
eLetters
No eLetters have been published for this article.