Talk:Improving Access to Psychological Therapies

Comment
Informative book review in The Lancet, I thought:


 * http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2961713-X/fulltext
 * The Lancet, Volume 384, Issue 9949, Pages 1176 - 1177, 27 September 2014
 * doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61713-X
 * Two cheers for psychotherapy
 * Peter Tyrer
 * Thrive: The Power of Evidence-Based Psychological Therapies
 * Richard Layard, David M Clark
 * Penguin, 2014384
 * £20·00 ISBN-9781846146053

--Nbauman (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Detailed Critique of IAPT Towards A Mental Health System That Works (2017) Michael J Scott London: Routledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.78.106 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Improving Access to Psychological Therapies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100821180612/http://www.nice.org.uk:80/CG022quickrefguide to http://www.nice.org.uk/CG022quickrefguide
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011165243/http://www.nice.org.uk/CG023quickrefguide to http://www.nice.org.uk/CG023quickrefguide

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've added a POV template warning to this article. Specifically, this sentence:

"However Norman Lamb, who championed IAPT within the coalition government 2010-2015, disagreed with picking faults with such an extensive and world-leading advance in evidence-based treatment. [9]" 

Does not sound suitable for the neutral perspective that Wikipedia is supposed to uphold. If it's a quote, it should be in quotes. If it's a judgement by an editor, it should be rewritten. Furthermore, this article has other issues. For one it has outdated sections, such as:

"There has been some debate over whether IAPT's roll-out may result initially in low quality therapy being offered by poorly trained practitioners.[5][6]"

Given the programme has now run for over 10 years, this should obviously be updated to say whether this did or did not happen. More fundamentally, large sections of this article read like rewritten excerpts from newspaper articles, that quote lots of estimated statistics rather than actual analysis. Greeninkdrama (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)