Last year, nearly half a million people took the difficult step to seek treatment through NHS talking therapies services for anxiety or stress-related disorders.

Listen to this article

After receiving treatment, less than half met the threshold of ‘reliable recovery’, meaning that hundreds of thousands of people did not significantly recover, and they continue to need clinical care.

With the rising rates of anxiety in the UK receiving widespread attention from the media and government, it is essential that mental health services can deliver for every person seeking support. Instead, what many find is a system unable to meet their needs.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) creates recommendations for care in the NHS. Their guideline for treating generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder in adults has not been significantly updated since its initial creation in 2011. This limits access to effective, up to date care.

Led by the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), a coalition of over 70 organisations, academics, practitioners and policymakers has written to NICE this week, calling for an update to the guideline that addresses their concerns.

Currently, people with anxiety can only receive two types of therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or applied relaxation. While these therapies work for some, they risk leaving those with difficult underlying reasons for their anxiety unable to access appropriate treatment, as the current options focus on managing symptoms rather than tackling deeper, complex issues, such as trauma.

People seeking treatment for depression can access a range of therapies equally effective in treating anxiety. Those with anxiety cannot.

This doesn’t only impact patients. In practice, this creates a bottleneck in mental health services where therapists who are trained in other talking and creative therapies cannot work with people who would benefit from their help.

One UKCP psychotherapist said: “We have to turn away people who may not want, or be appropriate to receive, CBT or applied relaxation. It doesn’t have to be this way. The therapy model I use has evidence of being similarly effective at treating anxiety. If NICE adapted their guidelines, people could have alternative options for therapy on the NHS”.

Remarkably, NICE’s own evidence review found no significant difference in outcomes between CBT and other talking therapies, yet the options remain limited. Increasing treatment options would be highly beneficial for both patients and clinicians.

It is well known that people from minority ethnic backgrounds and other ‘hard-to-reach’ groups have significantly worse health outcomes, and it is vital that our healthcare system does not deepen existing health inequalities.

NICE guidelines for treating other medical conditions repeatedly highlight the importance of reducing barriers to access and ensuring services can provide appropriate accommodations.

These concerns are overlooked in the guidelines for treating anxiety, preventing some of the most vulnerable patients from accessing care. This limits their chances of recovery and poses a risk of lifelong impacts on their quality of life.

It is critical that everyone can access treatment for anxiety. Rosie Weatherley, Information and Content Manager at Mind, said, “Too many people with anxiety are not getting the support that works for them. Updating the NICE guideline would ensure people can receive care that reflects their individual needs. It's vital that updated guidance reflects not only the latest clinical evidence, but also the experiences of people living with anxiety”.

People seeking help for anxiety deserve a genuine choice of treatment, regardless of their background or circumstance. The case for change is clear and well evidenced. It is time for NICE to act on it.

Ellen Dunn is coalition leader and Policy and Research Manager at UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP).

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk

© LBC