BackgroundMental health problems account for almost half of all ill health in people under 65 years. The majority are non-psychotic (e.g. depression, anxiety and phobias). For some people, art therapy may provide more profound and long-lasting healing than more standard forms of treatment, perhaps because it can provide an alternative means of expression and release from trauma. As yet, no formal evaluation of art therapy for non-psychotic mental health disorders has been conducted.AimThis review aimed to evaluate evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of art therapy for non-psychotic mental health disorders.MethodsComprehensive literature searches for studies examining art therapy in populations with non-psychotic mental health disorders were performed in major health-related and social science bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) from inception up to May 2013. A quantitative systematic review of clinical effectiveness, a qualitative review to explore the acceptability, relative benefits and potential harms, and a cost–utility analysis of studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of art therapy were conducted.ResultsIn the quantitative review, 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included (n = 777). Meta-analysis was not possible because of clinical heterogeneity and insufficient comparable data on outcome measures across studies. A narrative synthesis reports that art therapy was associated with significant positive changes relative to the control group in mental health symptoms in 10 out of the 15 studies. The control groups varied between studies but included wait-list/no treatment, attention placebo controls and psychological therapy comparators. Four studies reported improvement from baseline but no significant difference between groups. One study reported that outcomes were more favourable in the control group. The quality of included RCTs was generally low. In the qualitative review, 12 cohort studies were included (n = 188 service users;n = 16 service providers). Themes relating to benefits of art therapy for service users included the relationship with the therapist, personal achievement and distraction. Areas of potential harms were related to the activation of emotions that were then unresolved, lack of skill of the art therapist and sudden termination of art therapy. The quality of included qualitative studies was generally low to moderate. In the cost-effectiveness review, a de novo model was constructed and populated with data identified from the clinical review. Scenario analyses were conducted allowing comparisons of group art therapy with wait-list control, group art therapy with group verbal therapy, and individual art therapy versus control. Art therapy appeared cost-effective compared with wait-list control with high certainty, although generalisability to the target population was unclear. Verbal therapy appeared more cost-effective than art therapy but there was considerable uncertainty and a sizeable probability that art therapy was more clinically effective. The cost-effectiveness of individual art therapy was uncertain and dependent on assumptions regarding clinical benefit and duration of benefit.ConclusionsFrom the limited available evidence, art therapy was associated with positive effects when compared with a control in a number of studies in patients with different clinical profiles, and it was reported to be an acceptable treatment and was associated with a number of benefits. Art therapy appeared to be cost-effective compared with wait-list but further studies are needed to confirm this finding as well as evidence to inform future cost-effective analyses of art therapy versus other treatments.Study registrationThe study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003957.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies provided a service that was probably cost-effective within the usual National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) threshold range of £20 000-30 000, but there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the costs and outcome differences.

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. NHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a very reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 30-40 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £300 per volume. Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can only be purchased for the current or forthcoming volume. Contact details are as follows: Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK. We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTA NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he research findings from the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme directly influence key decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC) who rely on HTA outputs to help raise standards of care. HTA findings also help to improve the quality of the service in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service' that is being developed to improve the evidence of clinical practice throughout the NHS.The HTA Programme was set up in 1993. Its role is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined to include all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care, rather than settings of care.The HTA Programme commissions research only on topics where it has identified key gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. Suggestions for topics are actively sought from people working in the NHS,...

Patients require clear information, choice, involvement in decision-making, explicit contracting and clarity about sessions and progress. Opportunities for patient feedback should be the norm, where the therapist and service are vigilant for signs of deterioration and solutions considered. Clinical and methodological significance of this article: Estimates of "unwanted effects," including long-lasting effects, of psychotherapy have ranged from 3% to 15%. Few empirical studies have been conducted in this area. This study aimed to address this gap and provide clinicians with a model of risk factors for negative therapy effects. The findings of this study indicate the importance of providing patients with a supportive service structure that offers clear information, choice and involvement in decision-making. Explicit contracting at the beginning of therapy and clarity about sessions and progress are also important in managing patient expectations throughout. Opportunities for patient feedback should be provided.

BackgroundImproving Access to Psychological Therapy (IAPT) services have increased the number of people with common mental health disorders receiving psychological therapy in England, but concerns remain about how equitably these services are accessed.MethodUsing cohort patient data (N=363) collected as part of the independent evaluation of the two demonstration sites, logistic regression was utilised to identify socio-demographic, clinical and service factors predictive of IAPT non-attendance.ResultsSignificant predictors of IAPT first session non-attendance by patients were: lower non-risk score on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM); more frequent thoughts of “being better off dead” (derived from the CORE-OM); either a very recent onset of common mental health disorder (1 month or less) or a long term condition (more than 2 years); and site.LimitationsThe small sample and low response rate are limitations, as the sample may not be representative of all those referred to IAPT services. The predictive power of the logistic regression model is limited and suggests other variables not available in the dataset may also be important predictors.ConclusionsThe clinical characteristics of risk to self, severity of emotional distress, and illness duration, along with site, were more predictive of IAPT non-attendance than socio-demographic characteristics. Further testing of the relationship between these variables and IAPT non-attendance is recommended. Clinicians should monitor IAPT uptake in those they refer and implement strategies to increase their engagement with services, particularly when referring people presenting with suicidal ideation or more chronic illness.

People with CMHP use more healthcare resources. Referral to the IAPT programme is associated with a subsequent reduction in emergency department attendances, sickness certification and improved adherence to drug treatment.

Mental health teams in different configurations and settings are under increasing pressure to offer formal psychotherapies as well as psychologically informed management to large numbers of 'difficult' patients with severe and complex presentations. This pressure has arisen variously from consumers, governmental agencies and commissioning bodies. Although these teams are an important resource, they receive limited training, supervision or support in models of psychotherapy, especially those incorporating a relational dimension and offering a coherent 'common language'. This commonly results in impairment of collective team function, including the quality and consistency of assessments, and may result in stress, splitting and 'burn out' for team members. This situation is due in part to their burden of casework and responsibility but also to prevailing, largely symptom-based and biomedical, models of mental disorder which tend to minimize the importance of psychosocial dimensions in either aetiology or treatment. Formulating and delivering appropriate, evidence-based and robust models of psychotherapy in generic team settings represents a significantly different challenge from that posed by delivery of psychotherapy in specialist settings. Approaches to this important challenge are discussed and summarized drawing on general considerations and the limited direct research evidence, and are illustrated by a cognitive analytic therapy (CAT)-based training project.

No abstract