Stephen M Schueller1, Mary J Kwasny2, Blake F Dear3, Nickolai Titov4, David C Mohr5. 1. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Preventive Medicine, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 10th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, United States. Electronic address: Schueller@northwestern.edu. 2. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Preventive Medicine, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 10th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, United States. Electronic address: m-kwasny@northwestern.edu. 3. Macquarie University, Department of Psychology, New South Wales 2109, Australia. Electronic address: blake.dear@mq.edu.au. 4. Macquarie University, Department of Psychology, New South Wales 2109, Australia. Electronic address: nick.titov@mq.edu.au. 5. Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Preventive Medicine, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, 10th Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, United States. Electronic address: d-mohr@northwestern.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Monitoring depressive symptoms during treatment can guide clinical decision making and improve outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore values on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) that could predict response to treatment. METHOD: Data came from two independent trials, including three treatment modalities of cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression. Four hundred eighty-seven participants who either met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition criteria for major depressive disorder or had PHQ-9 scores consistent with a diagnosis of depression were included in our analyses. Participants either received 18 weeks of telephone or face-to-face (n=279) or 8 weeks of Web-delivered (n=208) cognitive-behavioral therapy. Depressive symptoms, evaluated using the PHQ-9, were reported every 4 weeks in the telephone and face-to-face trial and weekly in the Web-delivered intervention trial. RESULTS: Optimal cut points for predicting end-of-treatment response were consistent in both trials. Our results suggested using cut points of a PHQ-9 ≥17 at Week 4, and PHQ-9 ≥13 at Week 9 and PHQ-9 ≥9 at Week 14. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent cut points were found within the included trials. These cut points may be valuable for algorithms to support clinical decision making.
OBJECTIVE: Monitoring depressive symptoms during treatment can guide clinical decision making and improve outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore values on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) that could predict response to treatment. METHOD: Data came from two independent trials, including three treatment modalities of cognitive-behavioral treatment for depression. Four hundred eighty-seven participants who either met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition criteria for major depressive disorder or had PHQ-9 scores consistent with a diagnosis of depression were included in our analyses. Participants either received 18 weeks of telephone or face-to-face (n=279) or 8 weeks of Web-delivered (n=208) cognitive-behavioral therapy. Depressive symptoms, evaluated using the PHQ-9, were reported every 4 weeks in the telephone and face-to-face trial and weekly in the Web-delivered intervention trial. RESULTS: Optimal cut points for predicting end-of-treatment response were consistent in both trials. Our results suggested using cut points of a PHQ-9 ≥17 at Week 4, and PHQ-9 ≥13 at Week 9 and PHQ-9 ≥9 at Week 14. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent cut points were found within the included trials. These cut points may be valuable for algorithms to support clinical decision making.
Authors: David C Mohr; Stacey L Hart; Laura Julian; Claudine Catledge; Lara Honos-Webb; Lea Vella; Edwin T Tasch Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-09
Authors: A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Stephen R Wisniewski; Andrew A Nierenberg; Jonathan W Stewart; Diane Warden; George Niederehe; Michael E Thase; Philip W Lavori; Barry D Lebowitz; Patrick J McGrath; Jerrold F Rosenbaum; Harold A Sackeim; David J Kupfer; James Luther; Maurizio Fava Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Doreen Koretz; Kathleen R Merikangas; A John Rush; Ellen E Walters; Philip S Wang Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dana Steidtmann; Rachel Manber; Christine Blasey; John C Markowitz; Daniel N Klein; Barbara O Rothbaum; Michael E Thase; James H Kocsis; Bruce A Arnow Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2013-06-10
Authors: Jennifer Nicholas; Kathryn E Ringland; Andrea K Graham; Ashley A Knapp; Emily G Lattie; Mary J Kwasny; David C Mohr Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 3.390