Simon Gilbody

Hull York Medical School, York, England, United Kingdom

Are you Simon Gilbody?

Claim your profile

Publications (153)661.93 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) specify recommendations for the treatment and management of OCD using a stepped care approach. Steps three to six of this model recommend treatment options for people with OCD that range from low-intensity guided self-help (GSH) to more intensive psychological and pharmacological interventions. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), including exposure and response prevention, is the recommended psychological treatment. However, whilst there is some preliminary evidence that self-managed therapy packages for OCD can be effective, a more robust evidence base of their clinical and cost effectiveness and acceptability is required.Methods/design: Our proposed study will test two different self-help treatments for OCD: 1) computerised CBT (cCBT) using OCFighter, an internet-delivered OCD treatment package; and 2) GSH using a book. Both treatments will be accompanied by email or telephone support from a mental health professional. We will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and patient and health professional acceptability of the treatments.
    Trials. 07/2014; 15(1):278.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Generic preference-based measures of health like the EQ-5D and SF-6D(®) are increasingly being used in economic evaluation and outcome assessment. However, there are concerns as to whether or not these generic measures are appropriate for use in people with mental health problems.
    Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 05/2014; 18(34):1-188. · 4.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate if early symptom changes in brief low intensity psychological interventions (guided self-help and psycho-education using cognitive behavioural therapy principles) are predictive of final treatment outcome. Retrospective cohort data analysis. Clinical records for 1,850 patients who screened positive for depression and/or an anxiety disorder were analysed. Reliable and clinically significant improvement (RCSI) on depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9: PHQ-9) or anxiety (generalized anxiety disorder-7: GAD-7) outcome measures after treatment was the primary outcome. Change scores ≥6 on PHQ-9 and ≥5 on GAD-7 were taken as indicative of reliable improvement (RI). The model assumed that RI in the earliest treatment sessions would be predictive of RCSI post-treatment. Predictive accuracy was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC), as well as positive and negative predictive values. Diagnostic odds ratios were also estimated, adjusting for confounders such as baseline severity, use of medication, and pre-treatment symptom change. The AUC estimates for session-to-session change scores ranged between .62 and .88, indicative of modest to high predictive reliability. Predictive accuracy was higher for patients who had four or more treatment sessions, with more than 70% of patients with RCSI being accurately identified as early as sessions 1-3. Attrition rates were significantly associated with poor outcomes. Results suggest that at least four therapy sessions are necessary to achieve more than 50% RCSI rates, and the dose-response effect appears to decline in treatments longer than six sessions. Patients showing RI early in treatment were at least twice as likely to fully recover compared to those without early RI. Patients showing early response to low intensity therapy are at least twice as likely to recover at the end of treatment. Dropout from treatment is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Optimal recovery rates were observed for treatments with a total length of between four and six sessions; the dose-response declined in lengthier treatments. Randomization to different treatment lengths is necessary to confirm this dose-response effect with greater certainty.
    British Journal of Clinical Psychology 03/2014; 53(1):114-130. · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. However, CBT is a complex therapy that requires highly trained and qualified practitioners, and its scalability is therefore limited by the costs of training and employing sufficient therapists to meet demand. Behavioural activation (BA) is a psychological treatment for depression that may be an effective alternative to CBT and, because it is simpler, might also be delivered by less highly trained and specialised mental health workers. COBRA is a two-arm, non-inferiority, patient-level randomised controlled trial, including clinical, economic, and process evaluations comparing CBT delivered by highly trained professional therapists to BA delivered by junior professional or para-professional mental health workers to establish whether the clinical effectiveness of BA is non-inferior to CBT and if BA is cost effective compared to CBT. Four hundred and forty patients with major depressive disorder will be recruited through screening in primary care. We will analyse for non-inferiority in per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations. Our primary outcome will be severity of depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be clinically significant change and severity of depression at 18 months, and anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (Short-Form Health Survey-36) at 12 and 18 months. Our economic evaluation will take the United Kingdom National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective to include costs of the interventions, health and social care services used, plus productivity losses. Cost-effectiveness will explored in terms of quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol-5D measure of health-related quality of life. The clinical and economic outcomes of this trial will provide the evidence to help policy makers, clinicians and guideline developers decide on the merits of including BA as a first-line treatment of depression.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954.
    Trials 01/2014; 15(1):29. · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Computerised therapies play an integral role in efforts to improve access to psychological treatment for patients with depression and anxiety. However, despite recognised problems with uptake, there has been a lack of investigation into the barriers and facilitators of engagement. We aimed to systematically review and synthesise findings from qualitative studies of computerised therapies, in order to identify factors impacting on engagement. Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies of user experiences of computer delivered therapy for depression and/or anxiety. 8 studies were included in the review. All except one were of desktop based cognitive behavioural treatments. Black and minority ethnic and older participants were underrepresented, and only one study addressed users with a co-morbid physical health problem. Through synthesis, we identified two key overarching concepts, regarding the need for treatments to be sensitive to the individual, and the dialectal nature of user experience, with different degrees of support and anonymity experienced as both positive and negative. We propose that these factors can be conceptually understood as the 'non-specific' or 'common' factors of computerised therapy, analogous to but distinct from the common factors of traditional face-to-face therapies. Experience of computerised therapy could be improved through personalisation and sensitisation of content to individual users, recognising the need for users to experience a sense of 'self' in the treatment which is currently absent. Exploiting the common factors of computerised therapy, through enhancing perceived connection and collaboration, could offer a way of reconciling tensions due to the dialectal nature of user experience. Future research should explore whether the findings are generalisable to other patient groups, to other delivery formats (such as mobile technology) and other treatment modalities beyond cognitive behaviour therapy. The proposed model could aid the development of enhancements to current packages to improve uptake and support engagement.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(1):e84323. · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Clinical practice guidelines disagree on whether health care professionals should screen women for depression during pregnancy or postpartum. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether depression screening improves depression outcomes among women during pregnancy or the postpartum period. Methods Searches included the CINAHL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases through April 1, 2013; manual journal searches; reference list reviews; citation tracking of included articles; and trial registry reviews. RCTs in any language that compared depression outcomes between women during pregnancy or postpartum randomized to undergo depression screening versus women not screened were eligible. Results There were 9,242 unique titles/abstracts and 15 full-text articles reviewed. Only 1 RCT of screening postpartum was included, but none during pregnancy. The eligible postpartum study evaluated screening in mothers in Hong Kong with 2-month-old babies (N = 462) and reported a standardized mean difference for symptoms of depression at 6 months postpartum of 0.34 (95% confidence interval = 0.15 to 0.52, P < 0.001). Standardized mean difference per 44 additional women treated in the intervention trial arm compared to the non-screening arm was approximately 1.8. Risk of bias was high, however, because the status of outcome measures was changed post-hoc and because the reported effect size per woman treated was 6–7 times the effect sizes reported in comparable depression care interventions. Conclusion There is currently no evidence from any well-designed and conducted RCT that screening for depression would benefit women in pregnancy or postpartum. Existing guidelines that recommend depression screening during pregnancy or postpartum should be re-considered.
    Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 01/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(8):e104225. · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Depression is a common, disabling condition for which psychological treatments are recommended. Behavioural activation has attracted increased interest in recent years. It has been over 5 years since our meta-analyses summarised the evidence supporting and this systematic review updates those findings and examines moderators of treatment effect.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(6):e100100. · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sudden gains have been linked to improved outcomes in cognitive behaviour therapy for depression. The relationship between sudden gains and outcome is less clear in other treatment modalities, including interpersonal psychotherapy and supportive expressive therapy, which may indicate different mechanisms of change between treatment modalities. The current study examined sudden gains in adults meeting diagnostic criteria for depression (N = 40) offered up to 12 sessions of behavioural activation treatment. Sudden gains were found in 42.5% of the sample. Sudden gains occurred early (median pre-gain session 2) and were related to outcome: those who experienced a sudden gain had significantly lower post-treatment scores on the PHQ-9. Furthermore, the proportion meeting the reliable and clinically significant change criteria at end of treatment was higher in the sudden gain group. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the mechanisms by which sudden gains relate to therapy outcome in behavioural activation.
    Behaviour Research and Therapy. 01/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Policy developments in recent years have led to important changes in the level of access to evidence-based psychological treatments. Several methods have been used to investigate the effectiveness of these treatments in routine care, with different approaches to outcome definition and data analysis. Aims: To present a review of challenges and methods for the evaluation of evidence-based treatments delivered in routine mental healthcare. This is followed by a case example of a benchmarking method applied in primary care. Method: High, average and poor performance benchmarks were calculated through a meta-analysis of published data from services working under the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) Programme in England. Pre-post treatment effect sizes (ES) and confidence intervals were estimated to illustrate a benchmarking method enabling services to evaluate routine clinical outcomes. Results: High, average and poor performance ES for routine IAPT services were estimated to be 0.91, 0.73 and 0.46 for depression (using PHQ-9) and 1.02, 0.78 and 0.52 for anxiety (using GAD-7). Data from one specific IAPT service exemplify how to evaluate and contextualize routine clinical performance against these benchmarks. Conclusions: The main contribution of this report is to summarize key recommendations for the selection of an adequate set of psychometric measures, the operational definition of outcomes, and the statistical evaluation of clinical performance. A benchmarking method is also presented, which may enable a robust evaluation of clinical performance against national benchmarks. Some limitations concerned significant heterogeneity among data sources, and wide variations in ES and data completeness.
    Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 01/2014; 42(1):16-30. · 1.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Variability in patient-reported outcomes of psychological treatments has been partly attributed to therapists – a phenomenon commonly known as therapist effects. Meta-analytic reviews reveal wide variation in therapist-attributable variability in psychotherapy outcomes, with most studies reporting therapist effects in the region of 5% to 10% and some finding minimal to no therapist effects. However, all except one study to date have been conducted in high-intensity or mixed intervention groups; therefore, there is scarcity of evidence on therapist effects in brief low-intensity psychological interventions. Objective To examine therapist effects in low-intensity interventions for depression and anxiety in a naturalistic setting. Data and Analysis Session-by-session data on patient-reported outcome measures were available for a cohort of 1,376 primary care psychotherapy patients treated by 38 therapists. Outcome measures included PHQ-9 (sensitive to depression) and GAD-7 (sensitive to general anxiety disorder) measures. Three-level hierarchical linear modelling was employed to estimate therapist-attributable proportion of variance in clinical outcomes. Therapist effects were evaluated using the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bayesian empirical predictions of therapist random effects. Three sensitivity analyses were conducted: 1) using both treatment completers and non-completers; 2) a sub-sample of cases with baseline scores above the conventional clinical thresholds for PHQ-9 and GAD-7; and 3) a two-level model (using patient-level pre- and post-treatment scores nested within therapists). Results The ICC estimates for all outcome measures were very small, ranging between 0% and 1.3%, although most were statistically significant. The Bayesian empirical predictions showed that therapist random effects were not statistically significantly different from each other. Between patient variability explained most of the variance in outcomes. Conclusion Consistent with the only other study to date in low intensity interventions, evidence was found to suggest minimal to no therapist effects in patient-reported outcomes. This draws attention to the more prominent source of variability which is found at the between-patient level.
    PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(9):e99658. · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Co-morbid major depression occurs in approximately 10% of people suffering from a chronic medical condition such as cancer. Systematic integrated management that includes both identification and treatment has been advocated. However, we lack information on the cost-effectiveness of this combined approach, as published evaluations have focused solely on the systematic (collaborative care) treatment stage. We therefore aimed to use the best available evidence to estimate the cost-effectiveness of systematic integrated management (both identification and treatment) compared with usual practice, for patients attending specialist cancer clinics. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model structured to reflect both the identification and treatment processes. Evidence was taken from reviews of relevant clinical trials and from observational studies, together with data from a large depression screening service. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were undertaken to determine the effects of variations in depression incidence rates, time horizons and patient characteristics. Systematic integrated depression management generated more costs than usual practice, but also more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £11 765 per QALY. This finding was robust to tests of uncertainty and variation in key model parameters. Systematic integrated management of co-morbid major depression in cancer patients is likely to be cost-effective at widely accepted threshold values and may be a better way of generating QALYs for cancer patients than some existing medical and surgical treatments. It could usefully be applied to other chronic medical conditions.
    Psychological Medicine 08/2013; · 5.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Depression will be the second largest cause of disease burden by 2020. It is commonly associated with long term physical health conditions resulting in worsened clinical outcome and increased costs. Nurses would appear ideally placed to facilitate depression management in those people with long term health problems within health care clinics. This article reviews the evidence to support such a clinical approach. METHOD: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials of nurse led management of depression in patients with long term health problems. Databases were searched between December 2011 and May 2012, data were extracted and analysed using Comprehensive Meta Analysis software. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to explore the impact of study level moderators of effect. RESULTS: Nurse delivered collaborative care was compared to usual care in 14 studies including 4440 participants. The mean effect size at follow-up was d=0.43 95% CI 0.34 to 0.52 p<0.001 NNT 4.23, representing a moderate impact on depression severity. Results were consistent across studies and maintained at longer term follow up. LIMITATIONS: Data were only available on depression outcomes and with most studies being USA based generalizability is somewhat limited. To date only one study reported cost effectiveness outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the research literature nurse led depression management provides effective treatment across a range of long term health conditions. Nurses are ideally placed to deliver such interventions and further research is required to examine the cost utility of the approach and its durability outside of the USA.
    Journal of affective disorders 03/2013; · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To assess how initial severity of depression affects the benefit derived from low intensity interventions for depression. Design Meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 datasets comparing low intensity interventions with usual care. Setting Primary care and community settings. Participants 2470 patients with depression. Interventions Low intensity interventions for depression (such as guided self help by means of written materials and limited professional support, and internet delivered interventions). Main outcome measures Depression outcomes (measured with the Beck Depression Inventory or Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), and the effect of initial depression severity on the effects of low intensity interventions. Results Although patients were referred for low intensity interventions, many had moderate to severe depression at baseline. We found a significant interaction between baseline severity and treatment effect (coefficient −0.1 (95% CI −0.19 to −0.002)), suggesting that patients who are more severely depressed at baseline demonstrate larger treatment effects than those who are less severely depressed. However, the magnitude of the interaction (equivalent to an additional drop of around one point on the Beck Depression Inventory for a one standard deviation increase in initial severity) was small and may not be clinically significant. Conclusions The data suggest that patients with more severe depression at baseline show at least as much clinical benefit from low intensity interventions as less severely depressed patients and could usefully be offered these interventions as part of a stepped care model.
    BMJ Clinical Research 02/2013; 346(f540):1-11. · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Poor maternal mental health can impact on children's development and wellbeing; however, there is concern about the comparability of screening instruments administered to women of diverse ethnic origin. METHODS: We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to examine the subscale structure of the GHQ-28 in an ethnically diverse community cohort of pregnant women in the UK (N = 5,089). We defined five groups according to ethnicity and language of administration, and also conducted a CFA between four groups of 1,095 women who completed the GHQ-28 both during and after pregnancy. RESULTS: After item reduction, 17 of the 28 items were considered to relate to the same four underlying concepts in each group; however, there was variation in the response to individual items by women of different ethnic origin and this rendered between group comparisons problematic. The EFA revealed that these measurement difficulties might be related to variation in the underlying concepts being measured by the factors. CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence to recommend the use of the GHQ-28 subscales in routine clinical or epidemiological assessment of maternal women in populations of diverse ethnicity.
    BMC Psychiatry 02/2013; 13(1):55. · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the Treatment Outcomes Profile (TOP) psychological health scale (item 4a) as a case finding tool for common mental disorders. This cross-sectional diagnostic validation study involving 103 outpatients in a mainstream community drugs treatment service in Leeds, United Kingdom. Psychiatric diagnosis of a common mental disorder (CMD) was established using a structured gold-standard interview (CIS-R) based on ICD-10 criteria. Participants also completed the TOP measure and severity of dependence scale (SDS). A TOP item 4a score ≤12 had a sensitivity of 83% and specificity of 71% for a diagnosable common mental disorder, with moderate agreement between baseline and re-test measures (intra-class correlation = 0.78). The TOP scale was negatively correlated with overall CIS-R severity scores (r = -.60, p < .001), but was not correlated with SDS. Reliable and clinically significant improvement was defined based on a score >12 and a reliable change index ≥ 6. Psychometric testing in this moderate sample suggests that the TOP psychological health scale is a valid ultra-brief case finding measure for common mental disorders in drug and alcohol users. It might be usefully integrated as the starting point in a stepwise assessment method.
    Mental Health and Substance Use. 01/2013; 6(2):140-149.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Depression and anxiety disorders commonly coexist with drug and alcohol use. Several general population surveys suggest non-linear associations between alcohol and depression symptoms. It is unclear whether such association patterns occur in clinical samples and in the context of poly-substance use. The aim of the study was to investigate the association patterns between substance use and common mental disorder (CMD) severity. Patients accessing a UK outpatient addictions service were recruited sequentially via routine treatment contacts. Psychiatric diagnosis and severity of symptoms were established using the revised clinical interview schedule (CIS-R) structured diagnostic interview, yielding WHO ICD-10 diagnoses for CMD. Data on substance use patterns in the last month and severity of dependence were collected using standardised measures. ANOVA and multivariate regression models were employed to investigate associations between CMD symptom severity and substance use patterns. The results of the multivariate regression analyses indicated a linear association between weekly alcohol use and CIS-R severity; this was statistically significant when adjusting for severity of dependence, poly-substance use, gender and age. Other drug use patterns were not directly associated with overall psychiatric symptom scores, but some evidence was found that specific patterns of drug use correlate with specific psychological symptoms. In conclusion, only alcohol use was significantly associated with psychiatric symptom severity in the context of poly-substance use. Contrary to epidemiological surveys in the general population, no evidence was found for nonlinear associations between CMD and substance use in this clinical sample; nor did we find evidence that recent abstinence increases symptom severity.
    Mental Health and Substance Use. 01/2013; 6(1):59-75.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression. Cluster randomised controlled trial. 51 primary care practices in three primary care districts in the United Kingdom. 581 adults aged 18 years and older who met ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) criteria for a depressive episode on the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. We excluded acutely suicidal patients and those with psychosis, or with type I or type II bipolar disorder; patients whose low mood was associated with bereavement or whose primary presenting problem was alcohol or drug abuse; and patients receiving psychological treatment for their depression by specialist mental health services. We identified potentially eligible participants by searching computerised case records in general practices for patients with depression. Collaborative care, including depression education, drug management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention, and primary care liaison, was delivered by care managers. Collaborative care involved six to 12 contacts with participants over 14 weeks, supervised by mental health specialists. Usual care was family doctors' standard clinical practice. Depression symptoms (patient health questionnaire 9; PHQ-9), anxiety (generalised anxiety disorder 7; GAD-7), and quality of life (short form 36 questionnaire; SF-36) at four and 12 months; satisfaction with service quality (client satisfaction questionnaire; CSQ-8) at four months. 276 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 305 allocated to usual care. At four months, mean depression score was 11.1 (standard deviation 7.3) for the collaborative care group and 12.7 (6.8) for the usual care group. After adjustment for baseline depression, mean depression score was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 2.31, P=0.009) in participants receiving collaborative care than in those receiving usual care at four months, and 1.36 points lower (0.07 to 2.64, P=0.04) at 12 months. Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care than for usual care at four months, but not 12 months. Anxiety did not differ between groups. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment than those receiving usual care. The number needed to treat for one patient to drop below the accepted diagnostic threshold for depression on the PHQ-9 was 8.4 immediately after treatment, and 6.5 at 12 months. Collaborative care has persistent positive effects up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention and is preferred by patients over usual care. ISRCTN32829227.
    BMJ (online) 01/2013; 347:f4913. · 17.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess how initial severity of depression affects the benefit derived from low intensity interventions for depression. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 datasets comparing low intensity interventions with usual care. Primary care and community settings. 2470 patients with depression. Low intensity interventions for depression (such as guided self help by means of written materials and limited professional support, and internet delivered interventions). Depression outcomes (measured with the Beck Depression Inventory or Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale), and the effect of initial depression severity on the effects of low intensity interventions. Although patients were referred for low intensity interventions, many had moderate to severe depression at baseline. We found a significant interaction between baseline severity and treatment effect (coefficient -0.1 (95% CI -0.19 to -0.002)), suggesting that patients who are more severely depressed at baseline demonstrate larger treatment effects than those who are less severely depressed. However, the magnitude of the interaction (equivalent to an additional drop of around one point on the Beck Depression Inventory for a one standard deviation increase in initial severity) was small and may not be clinically significant. The data suggest that patients with more severe depression at baseline show at least as much clinical benefit from low intensity interventions as less severely depressed patients and could usefully be offered these interventions as part of a stepped care model.
    BMJ (online) 01/2013; 346:f540. · 17.22 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

4k Citations
661.93 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2010–2014
    • Hull York Medical School
      York, England, United Kingdom
    • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
      Londinium, England, United Kingdom
  • 1997–2014
    • The University of York
      • • Department of Health Sciences
      • • Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
      York, England, United Kingdom
  • 2013
    • Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust
      Darlington, England, United Kingdom
    • University of Exeter
      • Department of Psychology
      Exeter, England, United Kingdom
  • 2006–2013
    • CUNY Graduate Center
      New York City, New York, United States
  • 2012
    • University of Birmingham
      Birmingham, England, United Kingdom
    • Leeds Community Healthcare NHS Trust
      Leeds, England, United Kingdom
  • 2011
    • Durham University
      Durham, England, United Kingdom
  • 2001–2010
    • University of Leeds
      • Leeds Institute of Health Sciences (LIHS)
      Leeds, ENG, United Kingdom
  • 2008
    • St. John's Hospital
      Springfield, Illinois, United States
  • 2005–2007
    • The University of Manchester
      • School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work
      Manchester, ENG, United Kingdom
  • 2003
    • The Bracton Centre, Oxleas NHS Trust
      Дартфорде, England, United Kingdom
  • 2002
    • University of Helsinki
      • Department of Psychiatry
      Helsinki, Province of Southern Finland, Finland
  • 2000
    • University of California, San Diego
      San Diego, California, United States