Comparison of Treatment Outcomes Between Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Heterosexual Individuals Receiving a Primary Care Psychological Intervention

Rimes, Katharine A.; Broadbent, Matthew; Holden, Rachel; Rahman, Qazi; Hambrook, David; Hatch, Stephani L.; Wingrove, Janet

doi:10.1017/s1352465817000583

Cited by 26 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One study (1.6%) was set in a prison for male offenders (Adamson, Gibbs, & McLaughlin, 2015), whilst two papers (3.3%) studied outcomes with veterans (Clarkson et al ., 2016; Giebel, Clarkson, & Challis, 2014). One study explored the effectiveness of an IAPT for deaf patients (Young et al ., 2017), whilst another explored differences in outcomes based on sexual orientation (Rimes et al ., 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…a Moderator analysis for 'primary condition' was not undertaken for the WSAS outcome measure as all studies included were deemed to be investigating mental health with none focusing purely on physical health; *Significant at p < .05 threshold; **Significant at p < .01 threshold; ***Significant at p < .0001 threshold, between subgroup differences significant at Bonferroni-adjusted p < .01 threshold for multiple testing (in bold). IAPT for deaf patients (Young et al, 2017), whilst another explored differences in outcomes based on sexual orientation (Rimes et al, 2018).…”

Section: Mental Health Conditions and Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 10‐years of practice‐based evidence

Wakefield

Kellett

Simmonds‐Buckley

et al. 2020

British J Clinic Psychol

133

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) is a national‐level dissemination programme for provision of evidence‐based psychological treatments for anxiety and depression in the United Kingdom. This paper sought to review and meta‐analyse practice‐based evidence arising from the programme. Design A pre‐registered (CRD42018114796) systematic review and meta‐analysis. Methods A random effects meta‐analysis was performed only on the practice‐based IAPT studies (i.e. excluding the clinical trials). Subgroup analyses examined the potential influence of particular methodologies, treatments, populations, and target conditions. Sensitivity analyses investigated potential sources of heterogeneity and bias. Results The systematic review identified N = 60 studies, with N = 47 studies suitable for meta‐analysis. The primary meta‐analysis showed large pre‐post treatment effect sizes for depression (d = 0.87, 95% CI [0.78–0.96], p < .0001) and anxiety (d = 0.88, 95% CI [0.79–0.97], p < .0001), and a moderate effect on functional impairment (d = 0.55, 95% CI [0.48–0.61], p < .0001). The methodological features of studies influenced ESs (e.g., such as whether intention‐to‐treat or completer analyses were employed). Conclusions Current evidence suggests that IAPT enables access to broadly effective evidence‐based psychological therapies for large numbers of patients. The limitations of the review and the clinical and methodological implications are discussed. Practitioner points IAPT interventions are associated with large pre‐post treatment effect sizes in depression and anxiety measures. IAPT interventions are associated with moderate treatment effect sizes with regards to work and social adjustment. A reduction in dropout and also the prevention of post‐treatment relapse via the offer of follow‐up support are important areas for future development.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mental Health Conditions and Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 10‐years of practice‐based evidence

Wakefield

Kellett

Simmonds‐Buckley

et al. 2020

British J Clinic Psychol

133

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example of intervention effectiveness evaluation is a published comparison of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) treatment outcomes (Rimes et al 2018). It found that, compared with heterosexual women, lesbian and bisexual women showed smaller reductions in depression and impairment, controlling for age, ethnicity, employment, baseline symptoms, number of sessions, and intervention type.…”

Section: Intervention Effectiveness In Sexual Minority Populationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health and Well-being Among Sexual Minority People

Meads

2020

Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invisibility is an issue that affects a number of minority groups. There can be an assumption that there is no difference between the minority group and the majority and no effort is made to check whether this assumption holds true. Even where there might be evidence to the contrary, this can be discounted, leading to minority group concerns being not reported or underreported. This marginalization forms part of the institutional discrimination that minority groups can face.

show abstract

“…Broadly, these papers were thematically divided across three areas. Firstly, six papers focused on professional opinions and treatment outcomes of LGBT+ mental health [70,77,82,87,98,99]. Secondly, 22 papers were concerned with the incidence of mental health problems, and the risk factors associated with the elevated rates of mental health problems within LGBT+ populations [75,76,[78][79][80][81][83][84][85][86][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][100][101][102]106].…”

Section: Mental Healthmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of LGBT+ Health Inequality: Conclusions from a UK Scoping Review

McDermott

Nelson

Weeks³

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scoping review of UK evidence aimed to describe what is known about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans (LGBT+) health inequalities in relation to cancer, mental health, and palliative care to inform research, policy and public health interventions. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified studies from database searches, citation tracking, and expert consultation. The in/exclusion criteria was based on the PICOS framework. The data were charted and then summarised to map the theoretical approaches and the main types of evidence and identify knowledge gaps. In total, 279 articles were screened and 83 were included in the final review. We found that there is limited UK research examining LGBT+ health inequality in cancer, mental health and palliative care. We would argue that this thin evidence base is partly due to national policy discussions of LGBT+ health inequality that are framed within a depoliticised ‘it’s getting better’ narrative, and an unwillingness to adequately acknowledge the unjust social and economic relations that produce LGBT+ health inequality. In addition, LGBT+ health inequality is depoliticised by existing public health explanatory theories, models and frameworks that exclude sexual orientation and gender diversity as dimensions of power that interlock with those of socio-economic, race and ethnicity. This is a barrier to developing public health interventions that can successfully tackle LGBT+ health inequality

show abstract

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes Between Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Heterosexual Individuals Receiving a Primary Care Psychological Intervention

Abstract: Background

Cited by 26 publications

References 31 publications

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 10‐years of practice‐based evidence

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 10‐years of practice‐based evidence

Health and Well-being Among Sexual Minority People

The Politics of LGBT+ Health Inequality: Conclusions from a UK Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About