I welcome the opportunity to comment on the recent paper ‘Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) in the United Kingdom: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 10‐years of practice‐based evidence’ by Wakefield et al. (2020) published in the Journal. This paper is of considerable importance because the authors conclude that IAPT’s results approach the 50% recovery rate found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cognitive behaviour therapy for depression and the anxiety disorders. Taken at face value, this meta‐analysis provides justification for current IAPT services, which have cost the taxpayer £4 billion. Further the study could fuel the funding of not only the provision of services to more clients but accelerate the expansion of IAPT services without any diagnostic boundary. There can be no doubt that improving access to psychological therapies is an important societal aim, as only a significant minority of those with mental health problems are beneficiaries. But this is a far cry from legitimizing the tangible expression of this goal in the guise of the IAPT service.

我欢迎有机会对 Wakefield等人最近发表的论文“改善英国心理治疗的获取（IAPT）：对 10 年实践证据的系统回顾和荟萃分析”发表评论。（2020）发表在期刊上。这篇论文非常重要，因为作者得出的结论是，IAPT 的结果接近抑郁症和焦虑症认知行为治疗随机对照试验 (RCT) 中发现的 50% 恢复率。从表面上看，这项荟萃分析为当前 IAPT 服务提供了理由，该服务已花费纳税人 40 亿英镑。此外，这项研究不仅可以为向更多客户提供服务提供资金，还可以加速 IAPT 服务的扩展，而无需任何诊断边界。毫无疑问，改善心理治疗的可及性是一个重要的社会目标，因为只有极少数患有心理健康问题的人是受益者。但这与以 IAPT 服务为幌子具体表达这一目标的合法性相去甚远。