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.

1
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.2%
2
European Psychiatry
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.4%
3
Psychological Medicine
74 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.0%
4
BMJ Mental Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
6
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
8
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.5%
9
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.3%
10
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
11
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
12
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
13
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
17
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
18
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
19
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.0%
21
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
23
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
12 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
25
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%