BACKGROUND: Findings regarding the relationship between patient treatment preference and treatment outcome are mixed. This is a secondary data analysis investigating the relationship between treatment preference, and symptom outcome and attrition in a large two-phase depression treatment trial. METHODS: Patients met DSM-IV criteria for chronic forms of depression. Phase I was a 12-week, nonrandomized, open-label trial in which all participants (n = 785) received antidepressant medication(s) (ADM). Phase I nonremitters were randomized to Phase II, in which they received 12 weeks of either cognitive-behavioral system of psychotherapy (CBASP) + ADM (n = 193), brief supportive psychotherapy (BSP) + ADM (n = 187), or ADM only (n = 93). Participants indicated their treatment preference (medication only, combined treatment or no preference) at study entry. Symptoms were measured at 2-week intervals with the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). RESULTS: A large majority of patients reported a preference for combined treatment. Patients who preferred medication only were more likely to endorse a chemical imbalance explanation for depression, whereas those desiring combined treatment were more likely to attribute their depression to stressful experiences. In Phase I, patients who expressed no treatment preference showed greater rates of HAM-D symptom reduction than those with any preference, and patients with a preference for medication showed higher attrition than those preferring combined treatment. In Phase II, baseline treatment preference was not associated with symptom reduction or attrition. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment preferences may moderate treatment response and attrition in unexpected ways. Research identifying factors associated with differing preferences may enable improved treatment retention and response.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Findings regarding the relationship between patient treatment preference and treatment outcome are mixed. This is a secondary data analysis investigating the relationship between treatment preference, and symptom outcome and attrition in a large two-phase depression treatment trial. METHODS:Patients met DSM-IV criteria for chronic forms of depression. Phase I was a 12-week, nonrandomized, open-label trial in which all participants (n = 785) received antidepressant medication(s) (ADM). Phase I nonremitters were randomized to Phase II, in which they received 12 weeks of either cognitive-behavioral system of psychotherapy (CBASP) + ADM (n = 193), brief supportive psychotherapy (BSP) + ADM (n = 187), or ADM only (n = 93). Participants indicated their treatment preference (medication only, combined treatment or no preference) at study entry. Symptoms were measured at 2-week intervals with the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D). RESULTS: A large majority of patients reported a preference for combined treatment. Patients who preferred medication only were more likely to endorse a chemical imbalance explanation for depression, whereas those desiring combined treatment were more likely to attribute their depression to stressful experiences. In Phase I, patients who expressed no treatment preference showed greater rates of HAM-D symptom reduction than those with any preference, and patients with a preference for medication showed higher attrition than those preferring combined treatment. In Phase II, baseline treatment preference was not associated with symptom reduction or attrition. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment preferences may moderate treatment response and attrition in unexpected ways. Research identifying factors associated with differing preferences may enable improved treatment retention and response.
Authors: Pia Ley; Sylvia Helbig-Lang; Sarah Czilwik; Thomas Lang; Andrew Worlitz; Klaus Brücher; Franz Petermann Journal: Nord J Psychiatry Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 2.202
Authors: C Chilvers; M Dewey; K Fielding; V Gretton; P Miller; B Palmer; D Weller; R Churchill; I Williams; N Bedi; C Duggan; A Lee; G Harrison Journal: BMJ Date: 2001-03-31
Authors: Maurizio Fava; A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Andrew A Nierenberg; Michael E Thase; Harold A Sackeim; Frederic M Quitkin; Steven Wisniewski; Philip W Lavori; Jerrold F Rosenbaum; David J Kupfer Journal: Psychiatr Clin North Am Date: 2003-06
Authors: A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Hicham M Ibrahim; Thomas J Carmody; Bruce Arnow; Daniel N Klein; John C Markowitz; Philip T Ninan; Susan Kornstein; Rachel Manber; Michael E Thase; James H Kocsis; Martin B Keller Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Rachel Manber; Andrea S Chambers; Sabrina K Hitt; Cynthia McGahuey; Pedro Delgado; John J B Allen Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Digna J F van Schaik; Alexandra F J Klijn; Hein P J van Hout; Harm W J van Marwijk; Aartjan T F Beekman; Marten de Haan; Richard van Dyck Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Robert M Bossarte; Ronald C Kessler; Andrew A Nierenberg; Ambarish Chattopadhyay; Pim Cuijpers; Angel Enrique; Phyllis M Foxworth; Sarah M Gildea; Bea Herbeck Belnap; Marc W Haut; Kari B Law; William D Lewis; Howard Liu; Alexander R Luedtke; Wilfred R Pigeon; Larry A Rhodes; Derek Richards; Bruce L Rollman; Nancy A Sampson; Cara M Stokes; John Torous; Tyler D Webb; Jose R Zubizarreta Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 2.728
Authors: Stuart J Eisendrath; Erin Gillung; Kevin L Delucchi; Zindel V Segal; J Craig Nelson; L Alison McInnes; Daniel H Mathalon; Mitchell D Feldman Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 17.659
Authors: Catherine Crane; Rebecca S Crane; Catrin Eames; Melanie J V Fennell; Sarah Silverton; J Mark G Williams; Thorsten Barnhofer Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2014-08-30
Authors: Philip Negt; Eva-Lotta Brakemeier; Johannes Michalak; Lotta Winter; Stefan Bleich; Kai G Kahl Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Toshi A Furukawa; Elisabeth Schramm; Erica S Weitz; Georgia Salanti; Orestis Efthimiou; Johannes Michalak; Norio Watanabe; Andrea Cipriani; Martin B Keller; James H Kocsis; Daniel N Klein; Pim Cuijpers Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 2.692