# Non-pharmacological treatment of anxiety in general practice: a scoping review

## TL;DR

This review explores non-drug treatments for anxiety in general practice, finding digital tools, low-intensity care, and body-based methods show promise for mild to moderate cases.

## Contribution

The study provides a structured overview of non-pharmacological anxiety treatments in general practice, identifying key intervention themes and research gaps.

## Key findings

- Digital interventions, low-intensity care models, and body-based approaches were the main non-pharmacological treatments identified.
- All included studies targeted patients with mild to moderate anxiety and showed positive effects despite methodological differences.
- The evidence base remains limited, highlighting the need for further research on effectiveness and real-world implementation.

## Abstract

Anxiety is a common problem amongst the population, including patients in general practice. Treatment often relies on medication, but non-pharmacological alternatives may offer safer or more sustainable options, particularly for mild to moderate anxiety. There is a limited overview of which non-pharmacological treatments have been studied or implemented in general practice.

This scoping review aims to explore and describe existing evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for anxiety in general practice, providing an overview of available treatment approaches and identifying gaps to inform future research.

A scoping review was made following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Data was collected using keywords in several databases (PubMed, CINAHL and APA PsycInfo) and selected based on predefined eligibility criteria.

Three thousand four hundred and twenty-five articles were screened and 64 were assessed. A total of seven peer-reviewed articles were included. Three themes emerged among the interventions. These were digital interventions, step-wise and low-intensity care models, and body-based interventions. The interventions were delivered through various formats, including mobile apps, online platforms and in-person clinics. The studies all targeted patients with mild to moderate anxiety. Despite differences in methodology and populations, the interventions showed a positive effect.

This scoping review highlights that while the evidence is still limited, the non-pharmacological interventions mentioned in this review have shown promise in the treatment of anxiety. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness, implementation and real-world impact of these approaches in general practice.