Blending low- and high-intensity cognitive–behavioural therapy in NHS Talking Therapies for anxiety and depression: preliminary evaluation

Background A stepped care approach to treating anxiety and depression is common in mental health services. Low-intensity interventions, typically based on cognitive behavioural principles, are offered first, followed by high-intensity therapy if required. In the English National Health Service Talking Therapies (NHS TT) programme, different types of therapists deliver low- and high-intensity interventions. ‘Stepping up’ therefore involves changing therapist, and often an additional wait, which could both disrupt treatment flow. In NHS TT, many low-intensity therapists subsequently train at high intensity. Once dual-trained, they typically deliver only high-intensity treatment. With both skillsets, they could theoretically deliver a full stepped care pathway, avoiding potential disruption linked to stepping up. Aims To explore a blended treatment approach, where dual-trained therapists move between low- and high-intensity flexibly based on patient need. Method Ten dual-trained therapists across 4 services treated 43 patients. Patients with clinical complexities more likely to eventually require high-intensity support were selected. Propensity score matching was used to identify matched control groups from a pool of patients who received stepped care. Treatment characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared. Feedback was obtained from patients, therapists and supervisors. Results Compared with matched controls, who received low- then high-intensity treatment, blended treatment required four fewer sessions on average, saving a third of therapist time and was completed 121 days sooner. The reliable recovery rate (54.1%) was 9% higher than the stepped care group (44.7%), which is clinically, although not statistically, significant. Blended treatment showed a non-significantly higher reliable deterioration rate. Patient feedback was positive. Therapists and supervisors highlighted advantages alongside practical challenges. Conclusions The blended approach showed promise as an efficient and effective method to deliver therapy when clinicians are dual-trained. Larger-scale studies, and consideration of implementation challenges, are needed. However, results suggest that this approach could potentially offer more flexible and seamless care delivery.