I'm damned sure that IAPT process of implementation regards proposed digitally-enabled therapies, will be used to provide yet more 'non' evidence which will support the maintenance of the status quo; that is the BPS model of illness and treatment, as is so inappropriately applied to #PWME. This view, can be evidenced from the 'interim'
IAB process and methods statement.
Some notable extracts on a cursory glance of the first few pages of this statement, and as follows:
1.1.1 The statement details the process applied for topic selection of digitally enabled therapies for anxiety disorders and depression, and the main stages for IAPT assessment briefing development. This statement does not cover the process for testing in practice or the development of the IAPT report following testing in practice.
1.2.2 NICE has been commissioned by NHS England to assess selected, digitally enabled therapies (self-study online reinforced and supported by the therapist) for depression and anxiety using ongoing data collection .. The NICE and NHS England digital therapy technology endorsement for IAPT programme has 3 workstreams: selection and assessment, developmental support and evaluation in practice.
Note, how conditions with medically unexplained symptoms have already been inserted into the IAPT process, despite not being part of the 'original' NHS England commission, and as indicated by NICE.
In summary, further reading of the workstream processes indicate that the 'IAPT expert panel' have input and overall control of all stages of the procurement process, which will be signed off by NICE .. sound familiar? Though IAPT do not 'manage' our NICE Guidelines directly, I would argue that they seek to do so indirectly, such is the byzantine world that is UK healthcare.
This really does need to be sorted out in a court of law, sooner rather than later .. I recall mention of use of the Human Rights Act on another thread; will have to revisit when energies allow.
Wishing you all improved health and happiness, John