Effectiveness of primary care psychological therapy services for treating depression and anxiety in autistic adults in England: a retrospective, matched, observational cohort study of national health-care records.
Journal
The lancet. Psychiatry
ISSN: 2215-0374
Titre abrégé: Lancet Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101638123
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2023
12 2023
Historique:
received:
02
05
2023
revised:
10
08
2023
accepted:
11
08
2023
medline:
20
11
2023
pubmed:
18
11
2023
entrez:
17
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Autistic adults report a higher prevalence of anxiety and depression than adults without identified autism but have poorer access to appropriate mental health care. Evidence-based psychological therapies are recommended in treatment guidelines for autistic adults, but no study has investigated their effectiveness in large samples representative of the autistic population accessing routine care. This study aimed to examine therapy outcomes for autistic adults in a primary care service. In this retrospective, matched, observational cohort study of national health-care records, we used the MODIFY dataset that used linked electronic health-care records, including national data, for individuals who accessed psychological therapy in primary care in Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in 211 clinical commissioning group areas in England, UK. All adults aged 18 years or older who had completed a course of IAPT in 2012-19 were eligible, and were propensity score matched (1:1) with a comparison group without identified autism. Exact matching was used, when possible, for a range of sociodemographic factors. Primary outcomes were routine metrics that have been nationally defined and used to evaluate IAPT treatments: reliable improvement, reliable recovery, and reliable deterioration. Secondary outcomes were calculated pre-post treatment changes in scores for Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7, and Work and Social Adjustment Scale measures. Subgroup analyses investigated differential effects across a range of sociodemographic factors. Of 2 515 402 adults who completed at least two sessions of IAPT in 2012-19, 8761 had an autism diagnosis (5054 [57·7%] male and 3707 [42·3%] female) and 1 918 504 did not (631 606 [32·9%] male and 1 286 898 [67·0%] female). After propensity score matching, 8593 autistic individuals were matched with an individual in the comparison group. During IAPT treatment, symptoms of depression and generalised anxiety disorder decreased for most autistic adults, but symptoms were less likely to improve in the autism group than in the comparison group (4820 [56·1%] of 8593 autistic adults had reliable improvement vs 5304 [61·7%] of 8593 adults in the matched group; adjusted odds ratio [OR Evidence-based psychological therapy for depression or anxiety might be effective for autistic adults but less so than for adults without identified autism. Treatment moderators appear different for autistic individuals, so more research is needed to allow for better targeted and personalised care. Alzheimer's Society.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Autistic adults report a higher prevalence of anxiety and depression than adults without identified autism but have poorer access to appropriate mental health care. Evidence-based psychological therapies are recommended in treatment guidelines for autistic adults, but no study has investigated their effectiveness in large samples representative of the autistic population accessing routine care. This study aimed to examine therapy outcomes for autistic adults in a primary care service.
METHODS
In this retrospective, matched, observational cohort study of national health-care records, we used the MODIFY dataset that used linked electronic health-care records, including national data, for individuals who accessed psychological therapy in primary care in Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services in 211 clinical commissioning group areas in England, UK. All adults aged 18 years or older who had completed a course of IAPT in 2012-19 were eligible, and were propensity score matched (1:1) with a comparison group without identified autism. Exact matching was used, when possible, for a range of sociodemographic factors. Primary outcomes were routine metrics that have been nationally defined and used to evaluate IAPT treatments: reliable improvement, reliable recovery, and reliable deterioration. Secondary outcomes were calculated pre-post treatment changes in scores for Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment-7, and Work and Social Adjustment Scale measures. Subgroup analyses investigated differential effects across a range of sociodemographic factors.
FINDINGS
Of 2 515 402 adults who completed at least two sessions of IAPT in 2012-19, 8761 had an autism diagnosis (5054 [57·7%] male and 3707 [42·3%] female) and 1 918 504 did not (631 606 [32·9%] male and 1 286 898 [67·0%] female). After propensity score matching, 8593 autistic individuals were matched with an individual in the comparison group. During IAPT treatment, symptoms of depression and generalised anxiety disorder decreased for most autistic adults, but symptoms were less likely to improve in the autism group than in the comparison group (4820 [56·1%] of 8593 autistic adults had reliable improvement vs 5304 [61·7%] of 8593 adults in the matched group; adjusted odds ratio [OR
INTERPRETATION
Evidence-based psychological therapy for depression or anxiety might be effective for autistic adults but less so than for adults without identified autism. Treatment moderators appear different for autistic individuals, so more research is needed to allow for better targeted and personalised care.
FUNDING
Alzheimer's Society.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37977697
pii: S2215-0366(23)00291-2
doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(23)00291-2
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
944-954Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12019/3
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests CEB, JS, GB, and AJ are supported by the Alzheimer's Society (AS-PG-18–013). JEJB was supported by Wellcome Trust (201292/Z/16/Z). MR was supported by the UK Medical Research Council (grants MC_UU_10019/1 and MC_UU_10019/3). CEB has been a statistical consultant to Eli Lilly and Company. EO’N, WM, and JS were supported by the Dunhill Medical Trust in unrelated projects. RS held an unrelated honorary position with NHS England, and their time was compensated through financial support to their employing institution. JS has been a consultant to NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership and is involved in unrelated research projects funded by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and NIHR. WM is involved in unrelated projects funded by ESRC, NIHR, Medical Research Council, and Autistica, and received consulting fees from Jessica Kingsley publishers, Jazz Pharma, and Just for Kids Law in unrelated projects. DD received funding in unrelated projects from NIHR. All other authors declare no competing interests.