Demographic and clinical characteristics of UK military veterans attending a psychological therapies service

Do people living in disadvantaged circumstances receive different mental health treatments than those from less disadvantaged backgrounds?

BACKGROUND

Socio-economic status (SES) has been linked to treatment outcomes for mental health problems, whilst little to no literature has explored the effects of SES on access to both medication and psychological therapy. The aim of this study was to explore whether access to mental health treatments differed by SES.

METHODS

The North West Coast Household Health Survey (HHS) collected data from residents aged 18+ from across 20 disadvantaged and 8 less disadvantaged neighbourhoods in 2015, and from 20 disadvantaged neighbourhoods in 2018. Logistic regression was used to explore the effects of SES on access to treatment (medication, psychological therapy) for people who had experienced mental health problems in the past 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 6860 participants, 2932 reported experiencing mental health problems in the past 12 months. People from more disadvantaged backgrounds experienced greater rates of anxiety and depression. Anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication treatment was significantly more common in residents with lower SES, as well as counselling. Regression analysis showed that residents from more disadvantaged neighbourhoods who reported mental distress were more likely to receive medication.

CONCLUSIONS

This appears to be the first study showing higher levels of treatment with medication and psychological therapy in people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Future research needs to address the underlying factors associated with increased mental health treatment uptake in people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Do people living in disadvantaged circumstances receive different mental health treatments than those from less disadvantaged backgrounds?

BACKGROUND

Socio-economic status (SES) has been linked to treatment outcomes for mental health problems, whilst little to no literature has explored the effects of SES on access to both medication and psychological therapy. The aim of this study was to explore whether access to mental health treatments differed by SES.

METHODS

The North West Coast Household Health Survey (HHS) collected data from residents aged 18+ from across 20 disadvantaged and 8 less disadvantaged neighbourhoods in 2015, and from 20 disadvantaged neighbourhoods in 2018. Logistic regression was used to explore the effects of SES on access to treatment (medication, psychological therapy) for people who had experienced mental health problems in the past 12 months.

RESULTS

Of 6860 participants, 2932 reported experiencing mental health problems in the past 12 months. People from more disadvantaged backgrounds experienced greater rates of anxiety and depression. Anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medication treatment was significantly more common in residents with lower SES, as well as counselling. Regression analysis showed that residents from more disadvantaged neighbourhoods who reported mental distress were more likely to receive medication.

CONCLUSIONS

This appears to be the first study showing higher levels of treatment with medication and psychological therapy in people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Future research needs to address the underlying factors associated with increased mental health treatment uptake in people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

The Impact of Alcohol Use on Drop-out and Psychological Treatment Outcomes in Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Services: an Audit

BACKGROUND

The impact of alcohol use disorders (AUD) on psychological treatments for depression or anxiety in primary care psychological treatment services is unknown.

AIMS

To establish levels of alcohol misuse in an Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service, examine the impact of higher risk drinking on IAPT treatment outcomes and drop-out, and to inform good practice in working with alcohol misuse in IAPT services.

METHOD

3643 patients completed a brief questionnaire on alcohol use pre-treatment in addition to measures of depression, anxiety and functioning. Symptom and functioning measures were re-administered at all treatment sessions.

RESULTS

Severity of alcohol misuse was not associated with treatment outcomes, although those scoring eight or more on the AUDIT-C were more likely to drop out from treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

IAPT services may be well placed to offer psychological therapies to patients with common mental disorders and comorbid AUD. Patients with AUD can have equivalent treatment outcomes to those without AUD, but some higher risk drinkers may find accessing IAPT treatment more difficult as they are more likely to drop out. Alcohol misuse on its own should not be used as an exclusion criterion from IAPT services. Recommendations are given as to how clinicians can: adjust their assessments to consider the appropriateness of IAPT treatment for patients that misuse alcohol, consider the potential impact of alcohol misuse on treatment, and improve engagement in treatment for higher risk drinkers.