Back

Building a prediction model for outcomes following treatment in UK NHS Talking Therapies services for depression and anxiety

Kanso, N.; Skelton, M.; Rimes, K. A.; Wong, G.; Eley, T. C.; Carr, E.

2026-03-13 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.03.12.26348223 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDepression and anxiety are common mental health conditions in the UK. NHS Talking Therapies offers evidence-based therapies and is the largest provider of treatment, yet, only 50% of patients recover. Accurate outcome prediction could identify those at risk of poor outcomes and support more personalised care. This study aimed to develop and internally validate multivariable prediction models using routinely collected data from a large, ethnically diverse sample to enable fair, data-driven treatment decisions. MethodsData included 30,999 adults who completed high-intensity therapy at a single NHS trust between 2018 and mid-2024. Seven NHS post-treatment outcomes were modelled: reliable improvement, recovery, and reliable recovery for both depression and anxiety, and also functional impairment at the end of treatment. Predictors measured at baseline included sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Models were developed using elastic net logistic regression and internally validated using bootstrap resampling. ResultsThe sample was predominantly female (73%) with a median age of 34; 57% identified as White and 22% as Black. Models showed moderate to good discrimination (AUC 0.63-0.77) and strong calibration. Key predictors aligned with clinical expectations, including baseline symptom severity, unemployment, benefit receipt, reporting a disability or long-term condition, psychotropic medication use among other sociodemographic factors. ConclusionsThis study highlights the potential of data-driven tools to inform clinical decisions and treatment stratification in NHS Talking Therapies. Early identification of patients less likely to benefit from standard care could support timely review, monitoring, or tailored interventions. External validation and implementation research are needed to ensure generalisability and equity in care.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.