| Literature DB >> 25886377 |
Stewart J Richmond1, Ada Keding2, Magdalene Hover3, Rhian Gabe4, Ben Cross5, David Torgerson6, Hugh MacPherson7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread popularity, text messaging has rarely been used for data collection in clinical research. This paper reports on the development, feasibility, acceptability, validity, and discriminant utility of a single item depression rating scale, delivered weekly via an automated SMS system, as part of a large randomised controlled trial.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25886377 PMCID: PMC4391083 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-015-0456-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Figure 1Participant flowchart for SMS sub study.
Baseline characteristics of patients consenting/not consenting to texting sub-study
| Characteristic | Consenting | Not consenting | Randomised |
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 527 (69.8%) | n = 228 (30.2%) | n = 755 (100%) | |
| Age: Mean (SD) | |||
| Years | 41.6 (11.5) | 49.5 (15.6) | 44.0 (13.4) |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 399 (75.7%) | 155 (68.0%) | 554 (73.4%) |
| Employment | |||
| Working full-time | 217 (42.3%) | 64 (28.3%) | 281 (38.0%) |
| Working part-time | 104 (20.3%) | 40 (17.7%) | 144 (19.5%) |
| Unable to work | 61 (11.9%) | 34 (15.0%) | 95 (12.9%) |
| Looking after home/family | 62 (12.1%) | 21 (9.3%) | 83 (11.2%) |
| Retired | 19 (3.7%) | 46 (20.4%) | 65 (8.8%) |
| Full-time education | 21 (4.1%) | 2 (0.9%) | 23 (3.1%) |
| Other | 29 (5.7%) | 19 (8.4%) | 48 (6.5%) |
| Total | 513 (100%) | 226 (100%) | 739 (100%) |
| Depression: Mean (SD) | |||
| Age at first major episode | 23.7 (10.7) | 28.5 (14.8) | 25.2 (12.3) |
| BDI-II | 32.6 (8.6) | 32.4 (9.2) | 32.6 (8.8) |
| PHQ-9* | 16.0 (5.3) | 15.8 (5.1) | 16.0 (5.3) |
*26 patients had 1 or 2 PHQ9 questions missing and therefore, their overall PHQ9 score was pro-rated.
R-SMS-DS response rates
| Acupuncture n = 214 | Counselling n = 207 | Usual care n = 106 | Total n = 527 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients responding to any text | 206 | 96.3% | 194 | 93.7% | 98 | 92.5% | 498 | 94.5% |
| Number of patients responding at Week 2 | 182 | 85.0% | 167 | 80.7% | 89 | 84.0% | 438 | 83.1% |
| Number of patients responding at Week 16 | 152 | 71.0% | 141 | 68.1% | 87 | 82.1% | 380 | 72.1% |
| Mean number of responses of responding patients | 12.5 | SD = 3.23 | 11.9 | SD = 4.09 | 13.6 | SD = 1.95 | 12.5 | SD = 3.45 |
Unadjusted mean R-SMS-DS text scores by trial arm
| Week | Acupuncture | Counselling | Usual care | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | |
| 2 | 180 | 5.4 | (1.57) | 163 | 5.9 | (1.87) | 87 | 5.8 | (1.70) |
| 3 | 182 | 5.6 | (1.83) | 159 | 5.7 | (2.01) | 90 | 5.7 | (1.88) |
| 4 | 183 | 5.4 | (1.82) | 157 | 5.6 | (2.09) | 89 | 5.5 | (2.08) |
| 5 | 187 | 5.2 | (1.89) | 156 | 5.4 | (2.05) | 94 | 5.7 | (1.99) |
| 6 | 177 | 4.9 | (1.92) | 152 | 5.2 | (2.09) | 87 | 5.3 | (2.01) |
| 7 | 176 | 4.8 | (1.96) | 151 | 5.1 | (2.13) | 90 | 5.4 | (2.08) |
| 8 | 169 | 4.7 | (1.98) | 155 | 5.0 | (2.22) | 87 | 5.4 | (2.15) |
| 9 | 169 | 4.5 | (2.14) | 149 | 4.7 | (2.29) | 92 | 5.2 | (2.22) |
| 10 | 169 | 4.4 | (2.27) | 154 | 4.5 | (2.24) | 87 | 5.4 | (2.20) |
| 11 | 163 | 4.5 | (2.35) | 146 | 4.7 | (2.29) | 87 | 5.8 | (2.01) |
| 12 | 166 | 4.4 | (2.19) | 150 | 4.4 | (2.28) | 87 | 5.7 | (1.94) |
| 13 | 167 | 4.1 | (2.20) | 144 | 4.5 | (2.40) | 89 | 5.2 | (2.09) |
| 14 | 161 | 4.0 | (2.09) | 151 | 4.6 | (2.37) | 82 | 5.3 | (2.10) |
| 15 | 152 | 3.9 | (2.11) | 142 | 4.5 | (2.46) | 86 | 5.2 | (2.31) |
| 16 | 151 | 3.9 | (2.31) | 137 | 4.3 | (2.35) | 85 | 5.3 | (2.28) |
Figure 2Mean unadjusted (R-SMS-DS) text scores by trial arm (1 = not at all depressed, 9 = extremely depressed).
Correlation between depression assessment tools (all p < 0.0001)
| Time | Assessment tool 1 | Assessment tool 2 | N | Kendall’s tau-b |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| PHQ-9 | BDI-II | 14081 | 0.6294 |
|
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 Total | 2202 | 0.5704 |
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 item 1 | 2192 | 0.5279 | |
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 item 2 | 2202 | 0.5316 | |
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 item 3 | 2192 | 0.3967 | |
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 item 4 | 2192 | 0.4206 | |
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 item 5 | 2182 | 0.4319 | |
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 item 6 | 2192 | 0.5673 | |
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 item 7 | 2202 | 0.4213 | |
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 item 8 | 2192 | 0.3786 | |
| R-SMS-DS | PHQ-9 item 9 | 2202 | 0.4166 | |
|
| PHQ-9 | BDI-II | 5483 | 0.6632 |
1All patients screened at baseline.
2Patients in the SMS sub-study with text replies received within +/− 6 days of date of PHQ-9 completion.
3All patients in the ACUDep trial with response data.
Linear mixed model : adjusted means and effect of trial arm at each time point
| Time | Acupuncture | Counselling | Usual care | Effect of trial arm | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | Mean | SE | F | df | p |
| 2 | 5.56 | 0.136 | 5.73 | 0.143 | 5.74 | 0.195 | 0.48 | 2 | .621 |
| 3 | 5.76 | 0.134 | 5.56 | 0.142 | 5.60 | 0.191 | 0.54 | 2 | .582 |
| 4 | 5.49 | 0.133 | 5.54 | 0.142 | 5.44 | 0.191 | 0.10 | 2 | .909 |
| 5 | 5.26 | 0.132 | 5.30 | 0.142 | 5.57 | 0.188 | 0.98 | 2 | .375 |
| 6 | 5.10 | 0.135 | 5.18 | 0.144 | 5.25 | 0.193 | 0.22 | 2 | .806 |
| 7 | 4.95 | 0.137 | 5.03 | 0.146 | 5.31 | 0.193 | 1.23 | 2 | .292 |
| 8 | 4.80 | 0.141 | 4.95 | 0.147 | 5.35 | 0.198 | 2.60 | 2 | .074 |
| 9 | 4.78 | 0.144 | 4.74 | 0.152 | 5.15 | 0.199 | 1.56 | 2 | .211 |
| 10 | 4.62 | 0.147 | 4.57 | 0.154 | 5.39 | 0.207 | 5.91 | 2 | .003 |
| 11 | 4.67 | 0.153 | 4.69 | 0.161 | 5.67 | 0.213 | 8.55 | 2 | .000 |
| 12 | 4.60 | 0.157 | 4.47 | 0.165 | 5.64 | 0.219 | 10.08 | 2 | .000 |
| 13 | 4.36 | 0.162 | 4.62 | 0.172 | 5.20 | 0.225 | 4.60 | 2 | .010 |
| 14 | 4.21 | 0.169 | 4.64 | 0.176 | 5.10 | 0.238 | 4.82 | 2 | .008 |
| 15 | 4.18 | 0.177 | 4.53 | 0.185 | 5.11 | 0.243 | 4.78 | 2 | .008 |
| 16 | 4.18 | 0.184 | 4.39 | 0.193 | 5.24 | 0.253 | 5.93 | 2 | .003 |
1Model definition: SMS score over 15 weeks predicted by trial arm, time, arm x time interaction, adjusting for baseline PHQ-9.
Figure 3Mean standardised outcomes for the PHQ-9 and R-SMS-DS text score at three months (SMS consenters only).
Standardised mean scores (Score/Standard deviation) by outcome measure and treatment arm at 3 months
| Outcome measure | Acupuncture | Counselling | Usual care | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| PHQ-9 Q1 | 1.18 | 1.007 | 1.28 | .986 | 1.59 | .989 |
| PHQ-9 Q2 | 1.10 | .915 | 1.46 | 1.035 | 1.70 | .962 |
| PHQ-9 Q3 | 1.50 | 1.022 | 1.61 | .990 | 1.75 | .984 |
| PHQ-9 Q4 | 1.62 | 1.007 | 1.84 | .969 | 2.05 | .995 |
| PHQ-9 Q5 | 1.27 | 1.019 | 1.39 | .981 | 1.38 | .990 |
| PHQ-9 Q6 | 1.12 | .924 | 1.37 | 1.058 | 1.56 | .968 |
| PHQ-9 Q7 | 0.95 | .937 | 1.15 | .966 | 1.52 | 1.076 |
| PHQ-9 Q8 | 0.60 | .946 | 0.64 | .926 | 0.99 | 1.146 |
| PHQ-9 Q9 | 0.46 | .889 | 0.62 | 1.025 | 0.81 | 1.127 |
| PHQ-9 Total | 1.47 | .977 | 1.70 | .975 | 2.00 | 1.007 |
| R-SMS-DS Week 16 | 1.66 | .973 | 1.80 | .992 | 2.26 | .960 |
Score differences and standard effect sizes for treatment arm comparisons at 3 months for participants in the SMS sub-study
| Acupuncture vs usual care | Counselling vs usual care | Acupuncture vs counselling | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | N | Score diff | SD* | Standard effect size | N | Score diff | SD* | Standard effect size | N | Score diff | SD* | Standard effect size |
| PHQ-9 Total | 272 | −3.40 | 6.45 | 0.53 | 258 | −1.90 | 6.45 | 0.29 | 342 | −1.50 | 6.45 | 0.23 |
| PHQ-9 Item 1 | 271 | −0.36 | 0.87 | 0.42 | 257 | −0.28 | 0.87 | 0.32 | 342 | −0.09 | 0.87 | 0.10 |
| PHQ-9 Item 2 | 271 | −0.54 | 0.91 | 0.60 | 257 | −0.22 | 0.91 | 0.24 | 340 | −0.33 | 0.91 | 0.36 |
| PHQ-9 Item 3 | 271 | −0.26 | 1.03 | 0.25 | 256 | −0.14 | 1.03 | 0.14 | 341 | −0.12 | 1.03 | 0.11 |
| PHQ-9 Item 4 | 270 | −0.42 | 0.96 | 0.43 | 258 | −0.20 | 0.96 | 0.21 | 340 | −0.22 | 0.96 | 0.23 |
| PHQ-9 Item 5 | 270 | −0.13 | 1.08 | 0.12 | 257 | 0.01 | 1.08 | 0.00 | 341 | −0.13 | 1.08 | 0.12 |
| PHQ-9 Item 6 | 271 | −0.45 | 1.03 | 0.44 | 258 | −0.20 | 1.03 | 0.19 | 341 | −0.25 | 1.03 | 0.24 |
| PHQ-9 Item 7 | 272 | −0.56 | 0.99 | 0.57 | 258 | −0.37 | 0.99 | 0.37 | 342 | −0.20 | 0.99 | 0.20 |
| PHQ-9 Item 8 | 272 | −0.36 | 0.92 | 0.40 | 257 | −0.33 | 0.92 | 0.36 | 341 | −0.04 | 0.92 | 0.04 |
| PHQ-9 Item 9 | 272 | −0.27 | 0.79 | 0.35 | 258 | −0.15 | 0.79 | 0.19 | 342 | −0.12 | 0.79 | 0.15 |
| R-SMS-DS Week 16 | 236 | −1.41 | 2.37 | 0.59 | 222 | −1.09 | 2.37 | 0.46 | 288 | −0.32 | 2.37 | 0.14 |
*Standard Deviation of total sample used for all comparisons.