| Abstract: | This paper describes the level of mental health problems that are encountered in primary health care. The limitations of using randomised control trials (RCTs) in evaluating effectiveness of psychological therapies in primary health care are described. Although the RCT may be useful in evaluating interventions in highly controlled situations, its use in evaluating clinically representative service delivery research is limited. A three-stage model of psychological therapies research is described to show that distinct stages require different methodologies in order to evaluate them, and this model is used to structure the review. The literature on research carried out in more naturalistic circumstances is then reviewed. Evaluating psychological interventions in this way shows there is considerable evidence that psychological therapies are effective in a number of ways in a primary care setting. The naturalistic studies that are more typical of clinical practice support the use of psychological interventions. The theme of the grey literature is almost entirely positive from the point-of-view of patients and GPs alike. However, there is considerable diversity in the sophistication of the methodology of the latter studies. Some were comprehensive evaluations, while others were more akin to audit. A major shortcoming is that few described their qualitative methodology. This said, the themes arising from the reports are very consistent and, had they been supported by a more robust qualitative methodology, would have added even more support, financially and clinically, for the arguments for counselling provision in primary health care. The level of referred clients' distress, measured by a variety of measures, was shown to be moderate to severe and similar to the level of patients referred to Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs). When they were measured, there was a considerable reduction in subsequent psychiatric symptoms. |
