Rosa A van Grieken1, Erik J A J Beune2, Anneloes C E Kirkenier3, Maarten W J Koeter3, Myra C B van Zwieten4, Aart H Schene5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Program for Mood Disorders, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 5, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: r.a.vangrieken@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Program for Mood Disorders, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 5, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of General Practice/Medical Ethics, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Program for Mood Disorders, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 5, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Psychiatry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 50% of all major depressive disorder (MDD) patients experience insufficient improvement from the available treatment options. There is emerging evidence that patients׳ beliefs and experiences about MDD treatment influence treatment outcomes. The aim was to explore patients׳ perspectives on impeding characteristics of professional treatment for the recovery of MDD. METHODS: In-depth interviews in a purposive sample with 27 recovered MDD patients who had received professional treatment. Data were qualitatively analyzed using constant comparison. RESULTS: Participants׳ accounts yielded four major impeding themes: lack of clarity and consensus about the nature of the participants׳ MDD and the content of their treatment; precarious relationship with the clinician; unavailability of mental health care; and insufficient involvement of significant others. LIMITATIONS: The external generalizability may be limited due to missed other subgroups within depression. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a comprehensive overview of impeding characteristics in MDD treatment from patients׳ perspectives. This may help clinicians to understand how patients experience MDD treatment, and to incorporate patients׳ perspectives about treatment into their joint decision-making. This can lead towards increased treatment adherence, motivation and finally success.
BACKGROUND: More than 50% of all major depressive disorder (MDD) patients experience insufficient improvement from the available treatment options. There is emerging evidence that patients׳ beliefs and experiences about MDD treatment influence treatment outcomes. The aim was to explore patients׳ perspectives on impeding characteristics of professional treatment for the recovery of MDD. METHODS: In-depth interviews in a purposive sample with 27 recovered MDDpatients who had received professional treatment. Data were qualitatively analyzed using constant comparison. RESULTS:Participants׳ accounts yielded four major impeding themes: lack of clarity and consensus about the nature of the participants׳ MDD and the content of their treatment; precarious relationship with the clinician; unavailability of mental health care; and insufficient involvement of significant others. LIMITATIONS: The external generalizability may be limited due to missed other subgroups within depression. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a comprehensive overview of impeding characteristics in MDD treatment from patients׳ perspectives. This may help clinicians to understand how patients experience MDD treatment, and to incorporate patients׳ perspectives about treatment into their joint decision-making. This can lead towards increased treatment adherence, motivation and finally success.
Authors: Katarina Arandjelovic; Harris A Eyre; Eric Lenze; Ajeet B Singh; Michael Berk; Chad Bousman Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2017-10-29 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Annie LeBlanc; Jeph Herrin; Mark D Williams; Jonathan W Inselman; Megan E Branda; Nilay D Shah; Emma M Heim; Sara R Dick; Mark Linzer; Deborah H Boehm; Kristen M Dall-Winther; Marc R Matthews; Kathleen J Yost; Kathryn K Shepel; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Rosa A van Grieken; Hanka F Verburg; Maarten W J Koeter; Jessica Stricker; Udo W Nabitz; Aart H Schene Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Diego Novick; William Montgomery; Ellen Vorstenbosch; Maria Victoria Moneta; Héctor Dueñas; Josep Maria Haro Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: André Løvgren; Jan Ivar Røssberg; Eivind Engebretsen; Randi Ulberg Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-19 Impact factor: 3.390