Guided self-help (GSH) for anxiety is widely implemented in primary care services because of service efficiency gains, but there is also evidence of poor acceptability, low effectiveness and relapse.

The aim was to compare preferences for, acceptability and efficacy of cognitive–behavioural guided self-help (CBT-GSH) versus cognitive–analytic guided self-help (CAT-GSH).

This was a pragmatic, randomised, patient preference trial (Clinical trials identifier: NCT03730532). The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) was the primary outcome at 8- and 24-week follow-up. Interventions were delivered competently on the telephone via structured workbooks over 6–8 (30–35 min) sessions by trained practitioners.

A total of 271 eligible participants were included, of whom 19 (7%) accepted being randomised and 252 (93%) chose their treatment. In the preference cohort, 181 (72%) chose CAT-GSH and 71 (28%) preferred CBT-GSH. BAI outcomes in the preference and randomised cohorts did not differ at 8 weeks (−0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) −4.52 to 2.92) or 24 weeks (0.85, 95% CI −2.87 to 4.57). After controlling for allocation method and baseline covariates, there were no differences between CAT-GSH and CBT-GSH at 8 weeks (F(1, 263) = 0.22, P = 0.639) or at 24 weeks (F(1, 263) = 0.22, P = 0.639). Mean BAI change from baseline was a reduction of 9.28 for CAT-GSH and 9.78 for CBT-GSH at 8 weeks and 12.90 for CAT-GSH and 12.43 for CBT-GSH at 24 weeks.

Patients accessing routine primary care talking treatments prefer to choose the intervention they receive. CAT-GSH expands the treatment offer in primary care for patients with anxiety seeking a brief but analytically informed GSH solution.

An Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service in England has implemented cognitive analytic therapy guided self-help (CAT-GSH) alongside cognitive behavioural guided self-help (CBT-GSH) in order to support enhanced patient choice. This study sought to explore the acceptability to psychological wellbeing practitioners (PWPs) of delivering CAT-GSH.

This study used a qualitative design with semi-structured interviews and associated thematic analysis (TA). A sample of n=12 PWPs experienced in delivering CAT-GSH were interviewed.

Five over-arching themes (containing 12 subthemes) were identified and conceptually mapped: (a) the past-present focus (made up of working with clients’ pasts and the different type of change work), (b) expanding the treatment offer (from the perspective of PWPs and clients), (c) the time and resources required to effectively deliver CAT-GSH (to enable safe and effective delivery for clients and personal/professional development for PWPs), (d) understanding CAT-GSH (made up of confidence, learning new therapeutic language/concepts and appreciating the difference with CBT-GSH) and (e) joint exploration (made up of therapeutic/supervisory relationships and enhanced collaboration).

CAT-GSH appears an acceptable (but challenging) approach for PWPs to deliver in IAPT services. Services should prioritise training and supervision for PWPs to ensure good governance of delivery.

To outline the methods of a pragmatic patient preference trial in the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme comparing cognitive behavioural therapy guided self-help (CBT-GSH) with cognitive analytic therapy guided self-help (CAT-GSH).

A partially randomised patient preference trial (PRPPT) methodology. Participants will be assessed with the MINI to ascertain a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder. Treatment will be six to eight 35-minute sessions in each arm. The primary outcome measure is the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), with secondary outcome measures of the IAPT minimum dataset and indices of service utilisation. Participants will be followed up at 8 and 24 weeks.

Choice, treatment completion, drop-out and step-up rates will be summarised via a CONSORT diagram. If there are no differences between randomised and preference participants within each form of GSH, then these groups will be collapsed to form a two-arm trial. The primary analysis will compare between-arm standardised effect sizes on the BAI measure, using Cohen’s d+ at 8- and 24-week follow-up. The proportions in each arm achieving reliable and clinical change on the BAI will be established, with interviews exploring the change process with participants achieving a reliable pre–post change on the GAD-7.

The utility of patient preference trials in mental health services are discussed and the necessary further development of robust evidence concerning low-intensity interventions is highlighted.