Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Purpose The efficacy of supported computerised therapy (eTherapy) for anxiety and depression is established; however, questions remain regarding supporter type. This paper aims to examine differences in client outcomes between clinician- (Psychological Wellbeing Practitioner) and non-clinician-supported, low intensity eTherapy. Standardised outcome measures were collected and analysed pre- and post-intervention in two eTherapy services as part of National Health Service (NHS) commissioned, Improving Access to Psychological Therapy provision – now known as NHS Talking Therapies for anxiety and depression (TT). Design/methodology/approach This study is a routine service evaluation comparing two eTherapy services. In total, 494 clients (including 455 clients meeting caseness) accessed the service over a year as part of routine care for anxiety and depression. The Patient Health Questionnaire and Generalised Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire scales were administered pre- and post-treatment as part of the TT data set (NHS England, 2024). Findings Following adjustment for demographics, baseline assessment scores and clinical variables, the authors found no evidence to support differences in the likelihood of recovery between clients in the non-clinician-supported site and clients referred to the clinician-supported site: OR = 1.24 95%CI: 0.71 to 2.17 for TT recovery, OR = 0.83 95%CI: 0.47 to 1.49 for TT reliable improvement and OR = 1.11 95%CI: 0.65 to 1.92 for TT reliable recovery. Originality/value Non-clinician-supported eTherapy is as effective as clinician-supported eTherapy. This finding supports the case for expansion of non-clinician-supported eTherapy services in TT services.
Lidbetter et al. (Mon,) studied this question.