Rachel Hershenberg1, William M McDonald1, Andrea Crowell1, Patricio Riva-Posse1, W Edward Craighead2, Helen S Mayberg3, Boadie W Dunlop4. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 12 Executive Park Drive NE 3rd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 12 Executive Park Drive NE 3rd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA; Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, 30329, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 12 Executive Park Drive NE 3rd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA; Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, 12 Executive Park Drive NE 3rd Floor, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. Electronic address: bdunlop@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Calls to implement measurement-based care (MBC) in psychiatry are increasing. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis concluded that there is insufficient evidence that routine application of patient reported outcomes (PROs) improves treatment outcomes for common psychiatric disorders. There is a particular paucity of this information in patients with treatment resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: A TRD sample (n = 302) and a treatment-naïve sample with major depression (n = 344) were assessed for the level of agreement in depression severity between two PROs (the Beck Depression Inventory, BDI, and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-report, QIDS-SR) and two Clinician Rated (CRs) measures (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, HDRS, and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, MADRS). RESULTS: Correlations between CR and PRO total scores in the TRD sample ranged from 0.57 (HDRS-QIDS-SR) to 0.68 (MADRS-BDI), reflecting a moderate-to-strong relationship between assessment tools. Correlations in the treatment naïve sample were non-significantly lower for most comparisons, ranging from 0.51 (HDRS-QIDS-SR) to 0.64 (MADRS-BDI). Few predictors of discordance between CRs and PROs were identified, though chronicity of the current episode in treatment-naïve patients was associated with greater agreement. LIMITATIONS: Inter-rater reliability of the clinician interviews was conducted separately within the two studies so we could not determine the reliability between the two groups of raters used in the studies. CONCLUSION: Findings generally supported acceptably high levels of agreement between patient and clinician ratings of baseline depression severity. More work is needed to determine the extent to which PROs can improve outcomes in MBC for depression and, more specifically, TRD.
BACKGROUND: Calls to implement measurement-based care (MBC) in psychiatry are increasing. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis concluded that there is insufficient evidence that routine application of patient reported outcomes (PROs) improves treatment outcomes for common psychiatric disorders. There is a particular paucity of this information in patients with treatment resistant depression (TRD). METHODS: A TRD sample (n = 302) and a treatment-naïve sample with major depression (n = 344) were assessed for the level of agreement in depression severity between two PROs (the Beck Depression Inventory, BDI, and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-report, QIDS-SR) and two Clinician Rated (CRs) measures (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, HDRS, and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, MADRS). RESULTS: Correlations between CR and PRO total scores in the TRD sample ranged from 0.57 (HDRS-QIDS-SR) to 0.68 (MADRS-BDI), reflecting a moderate-to-strong relationship between assessment tools. Correlations in the treatment naïve sample were non-significantly lower for most comparisons, ranging from 0.51 (HDRS-QIDS-SR) to 0.64 (MADRS-BDI). Few predictors of discordance between CRs and PROs were identified, though chronicity of the current episode in treatment-naïve patients was associated with greater agreement. LIMITATIONS: Inter-rater reliability of the clinician interviews was conducted separately within the two studies so we could not determine the reliability between the two groups of raters used in the studies. CONCLUSION: Findings generally supported acceptably high levels of agreement between patient and clinician ratings of baseline depression severity. More work is needed to determine the extent to which PROs can improve outcomes in MBC for depression and, more specifically, TRD.
Authors: Boadie W Dunlop; Steven P Cole; Charles B Nemeroff; Helen S Mayberg; W Edward Craighead Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Mark Zimmerman; Jennifer H Martinez; Michael Friedman; Daniela A Boerescu; Naureen Attiullah; Cristina Toba Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Boadie W Dunlop; Mary E Kelley; Vivianne Aponte-Rivera; Tanja Mletzko-Crowe; Becky Kinkead; James C Ritchie; Charles B Nemeroff; W Edward Craighead; Helen S Mayberg Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2017-03-24 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Boadie W Dunlop; Bhrett McCabe; James M Eudicone; John J Sheehan; Ross A Baker Journal: Hum Psychopharmacol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 1.672
Authors: Jeffrey R Vittengl; Robin B Jarrett; Erica Weitz; Steven D Hollon; Jos Twisk; Ioana Cristea; Daniel David; Robert J DeRubeis; Sona Dimidjian; Boadie W Dunlop; Mahbobeh Faramarzi; Ulrich Hegerl; Sidney H Kennedy; Farzan Kheirkhah; Roland Mergl; Jeanne Miranda; David C Mohr; A John Rush; Zindel V Segal; Juned Siddique; Anne D Simons; Pim Cuijpers Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Michael Bauer; Andrea Pfennig; Michael Linden; Michael N Smolka; Peter Neu; Mazda Adli Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.153
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: Lai Fong Chan; Choon Leng Eu; Seng Fah Tong; Song Jie Chin; Shalisah Sharip; Yee Chin Chai; Jiann Lin Loo; Nurul Ain Mohamad Kamal; Jo Aan Goon; Raynuha Mahadevan; Chian Yong Liu; Chih Nie Yeoh; Tuti Iryani Mohd Daud Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 3.390