OBJECTIVE: The quality of clinical interviews conducted in industry-sponsored clinical drug trials is an important but frequently overlooked variable that may influence the outcome of a study. We evaluated the quality of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) clinical interviews performed at baseline in 2 similar multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled depression trials sponsored by 2 pharmaceutical companies. METHODS: A total of 104 audiotaped HAM-D clinical interviews were evaluated by a blinded expert reviewer for interview quality using the Rater Applied Performance Scale (RAPS). The RAPS assesses adherence to a structured interview guide, clarification of and follow-up to patient responses, neutrality, rapport, and adequacy of information obtained. RESULTS: HAM-D interviews were brief and cursory and the quality of interviews was below what would be expected in a clinical drug trial. Thirty-nine percent of the interviews were conducted in 10 minutes or less, and most interviews were rated fair or unsatisfactory on most RAPS dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Results from our small sample illustrate that the clinical interview skills of raters who administered the HAM-D were below what many would consider acceptable. Evaluation and training of clinical interview skills should be considered as part of a rater training program.
OBJECTIVE: The quality of clinical interviews conducted in industry-sponsored clinical drug trials is an important but frequently overlooked variable that may influence the outcome of a study. We evaluated the quality of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) clinical interviews performed at baseline in 2 similar multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled depression trials sponsored by 2 pharmaceutical companies. METHODS: A total of 104 audiotaped HAM-D clinical interviews were evaluated by a blinded expert reviewer for interview quality using the Rater Applied Performance Scale (RAPS). The RAPS assesses adherence to a structured interview guide, clarification of and follow-up to patient responses, neutrality, rapport, and adequacy of information obtained. RESULTS: HAM-D interviews were brief and cursory and the quality of interviews was below what would be expected in a clinical drug trial. Thirty-nine percent of the interviews were conducted in 10 minutes or less, and most interviews were rated fair or unsatisfactory on most RAPS dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Results from our small sample illustrate that the clinical interview skills of raters who administered the HAM-D were below what many would consider acceptable. Evaluation and training of clinical interview skills should be considered as part of a rater training program.