“I used to think that they were all abnormal. And I was the normal one”: conceptualizing mental health and mental health treatment under Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT)

Background: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) was introduced in the United Kingdom in 2006 to provide more effective and efficient services to people experiencing mild to moderate mental ill health. The model represents a paradigm shift in how we provide psychological care to large populations. Aims: We wanted to document how the IAPT programme impacted on patients’ understanding of their mental health, and mental health treatment. Methods: We used Foucauldian Discourse Analysis to analyse six semi-structured research interviews with patients from one IAPT service in a major UK city. Results: Participants constructed their mental health problems as individual pathologies. Constructions of mental health and of treatment evidenced the privileging of personal responsibility and social productivity over dependency on others and the state. Conclusions: Services are functioning well for some. The role of IAPT in pathologising those who are dependent on people and services requires further commentary and action. Declaration of interest: The first author was employed by the same organisation that delivered the IAPT service, although through a separate staffing and management line.

Psychotherapy and its alternatives: Commentary on a critique

In this commentary, Michael Rustin reviews the articles in the symposium, outlining their main aims and arguments. He goes on to provide some critical reflections, asking questions about the key concept of the ‘therapeutic state’. He notes that little attention is given to psychoanalytic or other psychological theories of the mind, as distinct from the biological models which are the main object of criticism in the symposium. He argues that just as it is justifiable and useful to take account of theories of the mind in considering issues of mental health and therapy, so it is desirable also to take account of the structures of society which have responsibility for generating conditions of mental well- or ill-being, and to reflect on how these may be changed. The commentary argues that the counter-cultural and somewhat ‘post-modern’ critical approach which informs the symposium can only form part of a sufficient response to the problems which the symposium identifies.