Influence of sociodemographic and socioeconomic features on treatment outcome in RCTs versus daily psychiatric practice
Sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics of participants in antidepressant and psychotherapy efficacy trials (AETs and PETs) for major depressive disorder (MDD) may limit the generalizability of the results. We compared trial participants with daily practice patients. We subsequently assessed the influence of socio-demographic and socioeconomic status on treatment outcome in daily practice.
Data on daily practice patients were derived through routine outcome monitoring (ROM). We included 626 patients with MDD according to the MINIplus. Distributions of age, gender, race, marital status and employment status were compared with participants in 63 selected AETs and PETs. Influence of these features on treatment outcome was explored through multivariate regression analysis.
Trial participants were older, more often male (diff. 4 %, p = 0.05), white (diff. 4 %, p < 0.001) and not married (diff. 7 %, p = 0.003). Although significant, most differences were relatively small. However, the difference in employment status was striking: 34 % of the ROM patients were currently working versus 68 % of the trial participants (diff. 34 %, p < 0.001). Being employed contributed to a positive treatment outcome: OR 1.8 for response [50 % reduction of Montgomery Asberg Rating Scale for Depression (MADRS)], OR 1.9 for remission (MADRS ≤10).
Employment status should be taken into account while interpreting results from randomized controlled trials and as predictor of treatment success in daily practice.
KeywordsMajor depressive disorder Randomized controlled trial Sociodemographic status Socioeconomic status Patient selection
- 7.Moller HJ (2011) How close is evidence to truth in evidence-based treatment of mental disorders? Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin NeurosciGoogle Scholar
- 25.Lem RVD, Stamsnieder P, Wee NVD, Veen TV, Zitman FG (eds) Socio-demographic features in randomized controlled trials for major depression: generalizability and individualization. Int J Person Cent Med 1:268–278Google Scholar
- 26.Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E et al (1998) The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 59(Suppl 20):22–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.de Beurs E, den Hollander-Gijsman ME, van Rood YR, van der Wee NJ, Giltay EJ, van Noorden MS et al (2011) Routine outcome monitoring in the Netherlands: practical experiences with a web-based strategy for the assessment of treatment outcome in clinical practice. Clin Psychol Psychother 18:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Asberg M, Montgomery SA, Perris C, Schalling D, Sedvall G (1978) A comprehensive psychopathological rating scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 5–27Google Scholar
- 29.Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical Research. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London, pp 229–276Google Scholar
- 31.Royston P (2005) Multiple imputation of missing values: update. Stata J 5:188–201Google Scholar
- 38.van der Lem R, de Wever WW, van der Wee NJ, van VT, Cuijpers P, Zitman FG (2012) The generalizability of psychotherapy efficacy trials in major depressive disorder: an analysis of the influence of patient selection in efficacy trials on symptom outcome in daily practice. BMC Psychiatry 12:192Google Scholar