当测试不仅仅是测试时:抗抑郁药物反应测量技术试验(PReDicT 试验)中的患者访谈和调查结论

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Comprehensive psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1016/j.comppsych.2024.152467
Susan Brown , Cornelia Ploeger , Boliang Guo , Juliana J. Petersen , Amy C. Beckenstrom , Michael Browning , Gerard R. Dawson , Jürgen Deckert , Rebecca Dias , Colin T. Dourish , Philip Gorwood , Jonathan Kingslake , Andreas Menke , Victor Perez Sola , Andreas Reif , Henricus Ruhe , Judit Simon , Michael Stäblein , Anneke van Schaik , Dick J. Veltman , Richard Morriss
{"title":"当测试不仅仅是测试时:抗抑郁药物反应测量技术试验(PReDicT 试验)中的患者访谈和调查结论","authors":"Susan Brown ,&nbsp;Cornelia Ploeger ,&nbsp;Boliang Guo ,&nbsp;Juliana J. Petersen ,&nbsp;Amy C. Beckenstrom ,&nbsp;Michael Browning ,&nbsp;Gerard R. Dawson ,&nbsp;Jürgen Deckert ,&nbsp;Rebecca Dias ,&nbsp;Colin T. Dourish ,&nbsp;Philip Gorwood ,&nbsp;Jonathan Kingslake ,&nbsp;Andreas Menke ,&nbsp;Victor Perez Sola ,&nbsp;Andreas Reif ,&nbsp;Henricus Ruhe ,&nbsp;Judit Simon ,&nbsp;Michael Stäblein ,&nbsp;Anneke van Schaik ,&nbsp;Dick J. Veltman ,&nbsp;Richard Morriss","doi":"10.1016/j.comppsych.2024.152467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A RCT of a novel intervention to detect antidepressant medication response (the PReDicT Test) took place in five European countries, accompanied by a nested study of its acceptability and implementation presented here. The RCT results indicated no effect of the intervention on depression at 8 weeks (primary outcome), although effects on anxiety at 8 weeks and functioning at 24 weeks were found.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The nested study used mixed methods. The aim was to explore patient experiences of the Test including acceptability and implementation, to inform its use within care. A bespoke survey was completed by trial participants in five countries (<em>n</em> = 778) at week 8. Semi-structured interviews were carried out in two countries soon after week 8 (UK <em>n</em> = 22, Germany <em>n</em> = 20). Quantitative data was analysed descriptively; for qualitative data, thematic analysis was carried out using a framework approach. Results of the two datasets were interrogated together.</p></div><div><h3>Outcomes</h3><p>Survey results showed the intervention was well received, with a majority of participants indicating they would use it again, and it gave them helpful extra information; a small minority indicated the Test made them feel worse. Qualitative data showed the Test had unexpected properties, including: instigating a process of reflection, giving participants feedback on progress and new understanding about their illness, and making participants feel supported and more engaged in treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>The qualitative and quantitative results are generally consistent. The Test's unexpected properties may explain why the RCT showed little effect, as properties were experienced across both trial arms. Beyond the RCT, the qualitative data sheds light on measurement reactivity, i.e., how measurements of depression can impact patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10554,"journal":{"name":"Comprehensive psychiatry","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 152467"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010440X2400018X/pdfft?md5=eace4d667e0ac8859eebb725e7587acd&pid=1-s2.0-S0010440X2400018X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When a test is more than just a test: Findings from patient interviews and survey in the trial of a technology to measure antidepressant medication response (the PReDicT Trial)\",\"authors\":\"Susan Brown ,&nbsp;Cornelia Ploeger ,&nbsp;Boliang Guo ,&nbsp;Juliana J. Petersen ,&nbsp;Amy C. Beckenstrom ,&nbsp;Michael Browning ,&nbsp;Gerard R. Dawson ,&nbsp;Jürgen Deckert ,&nbsp;Rebecca Dias ,&nbsp;Colin T. Dourish ,&nbsp;Philip Gorwood ,&nbsp;Jonathan Kingslake ,&nbsp;Andreas Menke ,&nbsp;Victor Perez Sola ,&nbsp;Andreas Reif ,&nbsp;Henricus Ruhe ,&nbsp;Judit Simon ,&nbsp;Michael Stäblein ,&nbsp;Anneke van Schaik ,&nbsp;Dick J. Veltman ,&nbsp;Richard Morriss\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.comppsych.2024.152467\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>A RCT of a novel intervention to detect antidepressant medication response (the PReDicT Test) took place in five European countries, accompanied by a nested study of its acceptability and implementation presented here. The RCT results indicated no effect of the intervention on depression at 8 weeks (primary outcome), although effects on anxiety at 8 weeks and functioning at 24 weeks were found.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The nested study used mixed methods. The aim was to explore patient experiences of the Test including acceptability and implementation, to inform its use within care. A bespoke survey was completed by trial participants in five countries (<em>n</em> = 778) at week 8. Semi-structured interviews were carried out in two countries soon after week 8 (UK <em>n</em> = 22, Germany <em>n</em> = 20). Quantitative data was analysed descriptively; for qualitative data, thematic analysis was carried out using a framework approach. Results of the two datasets were interrogated together.</p></div><div><h3>Outcomes</h3><p>Survey results showed the intervention was well received, with a majority of participants indicating they would use it again, and it gave them helpful extra information; a small minority indicated the Test made them feel worse. Qualitative data showed the Test had unexpected properties, including: instigating a process of reflection, giving participants feedback on progress and new understanding about their illness, and making participants feel supported and more engaged in treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>The qualitative and quantitative results are generally consistent. The Test's unexpected properties may explain why the RCT showed little effect, as properties were experienced across both trial arms. Beyond the RCT, the qualitative data sheds light on measurement reactivity, i.e., how measurements of depression can impact patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comprehensive psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"132 \",\"pages\":\"Article 152467\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010440X2400018X/pdfft?md5=eace4d667e0ac8859eebb725e7587acd&pid=1-s2.0-S0010440X2400018X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comprehensive psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010440X2400018X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comprehensive psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010440X2400018X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景在五个欧洲国家对一种检测抗抑郁药物反应的新型干预方法(PReDicT 测试)进行了研究性试验,同时还对其可接受性和实施情况进行了嵌套研究。研究结果表明,干预措施对 8 周后的抑郁(主要结果)没有影响,但对 8 周后的焦虑和 24 周后的功能有影响。目的是探索患者对测试的体验,包括可接受性和实施情况,为其在护理中的应用提供参考。五个国家的试验参与者(n = 778)在第 8 周时填写了一份定制调查表。第 8 周后不久,在两个国家进行了半结构式访谈(英国 n = 22,德国 n = 20)。对定量数据进行了描述性分析;对定性数据则采用框架法进行了主题分析。调查结果显示,干预措施受到好评,大多数参与者表示他们会再次使用干预措施,而且干预措施为他们提供了有用的额外信息;少数参与者表示测试使他们感觉更糟。定性数据显示,该测试具有意想不到的特性,包括:引发反思过程、为参与者提供进展反馈和对自身疾病的新认识,以及让参与者感到被支持并更多地参与治疗。测试出乎意料的特性可能解释了为什么 RCT 显示效果甚微,因为两个试验组都体验到了测试的特性。除了 RCT 外,定性数据还揭示了测量的反应性,即抑郁测量如何影响患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
When a test is more than just a test: Findings from patient interviews and survey in the trial of a technology to measure antidepressant medication response (the PReDicT Trial)

Background

A RCT of a novel intervention to detect antidepressant medication response (the PReDicT Test) took place in five European countries, accompanied by a nested study of its acceptability and implementation presented here. The RCT results indicated no effect of the intervention on depression at 8 weeks (primary outcome), although effects on anxiety at 8 weeks and functioning at 24 weeks were found.

Methods

The nested study used mixed methods. The aim was to explore patient experiences of the Test including acceptability and implementation, to inform its use within care. A bespoke survey was completed by trial participants in five countries (n = 778) at week 8. Semi-structured interviews were carried out in two countries soon after week 8 (UK n = 22, Germany n = 20). Quantitative data was analysed descriptively; for qualitative data, thematic analysis was carried out using a framework approach. Results of the two datasets were interrogated together.

Outcomes

Survey results showed the intervention was well received, with a majority of participants indicating they would use it again, and it gave them helpful extra information; a small minority indicated the Test made them feel worse. Qualitative data showed the Test had unexpected properties, including: instigating a process of reflection, giving participants feedback on progress and new understanding about their illness, and making participants feel supported and more engaged in treatment.

Interpretation

The qualitative and quantitative results are generally consistent. The Test's unexpected properties may explain why the RCT showed little effect, as properties were experienced across both trial arms. Beyond the RCT, the qualitative data sheds light on measurement reactivity, i.e., how measurements of depression can impact patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Comprehensive psychiatry
Comprehensive psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
1.40%
发文量
64
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: "Comprehensive Psychiatry" is an open access, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the field of psychiatry and mental health. Its primary mission is to share the latest advancements in knowledge to enhance patient care and deepen the understanding of mental illnesses. The journal is supported by a diverse team of international editors and peer reviewers, ensuring the publication of high-quality research with a strong focus on clinical relevance and the implications for psychopathology. "Comprehensive Psychiatry" encourages authors to present their research in an accessible manner, facilitating engagement with clinicians, policymakers, and the broader public. By embracing an open access policy, the journal aims to maximize the global impact of its content, making it readily available to a wide audience and fostering scientific collaboration and public awareness beyond the traditional academic community. This approach is designed to promote a more inclusive and informed dialogue on mental health, contributing to the overall progress in the field.
期刊最新文献
Adequacy of treatment in outpatients with obsessive-compulsive disorder A comparison of firefighter mental health education programs: A descriptive thematic analysis of firefighter experiences Acceptability, tolerability and safety of the BRIGhTMIND trial: Connectivity-guided intermittent theta-burst stimulation versus F3- repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression Exercise moderates longitudinal group psychopathology networks in individuals with eating disorders The deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii) as a model organism to explore the naturalistic psychobiological mechanisms contributing to compulsive-like rigidity: A narrative overview of advances and opportunities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1