Feasibility of remote interviews in assessing disease severity in patients with major depressive disorder: A pilot study.

Abstract

Aim: Interview quality is an important factor in the success of clinical trials for major depressive disorder (MDD). There is a substantial need to establish a reliable, remote clinical assessment interview system that can replace traditional in-person interviews.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, unblinded, prospective, cross-sectional study to assess the reliability of remote interviews in patients with MDD (UMIN000041839). Eligible patients with MDD underwent remote and in-person sessions of the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) assessment performed by different raters within 28 days of providing consent. Patients were randomized to a group first assessed using in-person interviews and secondarily using remote interviews (in-person-first group) or a group first assessed by remote interviews and secondarily using in-person interviews (remote-first group). Nineteen trained people (15 clinical psychologists, 3 nurses, and 1 clinical laboratory technologist) performed interviews.

Results: Of 59 patients (in-person-first group, n = 32; remote-first group, n = 27) who completed both remote and in-person interviews, 51% (n = 30) were women; the mean age was 41.6 years (range, 21-64 years). There was a strong association between remote and in-person MADRS scores (r = 0.891, kappa = 0.901). An overall intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.886 (95% confidence interval, 0.877-0.952) indicated good consistency between MADRS scores in remote and in-person interviews. The ICC decreased as the severity of depression increased.

Conclusion: Our results suggest remote interviews are a feasible alternative option to in-person interviews in assessing symptom severity in MDD patients and could promote clinical trials in Japan.