CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 193Treatment of Major DepressionMental Health and Patient InvolvementAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identifying outcomes for depression that matter to patients, informal caregivers, and health-care professionals: qualitative content analysis of a large international online survey

Chevance, Astrid, Ravaud, Philippe, Tomlinson, Anneka, Le Berre, Catherine, Teufer, Birgit, Touboul, Suzanne, Fried, Eiko I, Gartlehner, Gerald, Cipriani, Andrea, Tran, Viet Thi·2020·The Lancet Psychiatry
DOI 10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30191-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Many clinical trials have assessed treatments for depressive disorders and bipolar depression. However, whether, and which, assessed outcome domains really matter to patients, informal caregivers, and health-care professionals remains unclear.Methods We did an international online survey in French, German, and English. Participants were adult patients with a history of depression, informal caregivers, and health-care professionals, recruited by purposeful sampling. To identify outcome domains, participants answered four open-ended questions about their expectations for depression treatment. We disseminated the survey without restriction via social media, patient and professional associations, and a media campaign. Four researchers independently did qualitative content analyses. We assessed data saturation using mathematical models to ensure the comprehensive identification of outcome domains.Findings Between April 5, 2018, and Dec 10, 2018, 1912 patients, 464 informal caregivers, and 627 health-care professionals from 52 countries provided 8183 open-ended answers. We identified 80 outcome domains related to symptoms (64 domains), such as mental pain (or psychological or psychic pain, 523 [17%] of 3003 participants) and motivation (384 [13%]), and functioning (16 domains), such as social isolation (541 [18%]). We identified 57 other outcome domains regarding safety of treatment, health care organisation, and social representation, such as stigmatisation (408 [14%]).Interpretation This study provides a list of outcome domains important to patients, informal caregivers, and health-care professionals. Unfortunately, many of these domains are rarely measured in clinical trials. Results from this study should set the foundation for a core outcome set for depression.Funding Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30191-7

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chevance, A., Ravaud, P., Tomlinson, A., Le Berre, C., Teufer, B., Touboul, S., Fried, E. I., Gartlehner, G., Cipriani, A., & Tran, V. T.
Affiliations
  • Université Paris Cité (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Chevance, Astrid
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
7
Issue
8
Pages
692-702
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30191-7
OpenAlex
W3023350371
Cited by
193
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 7
FWCI
16.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2020-09-01)
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-2017–08-ST2–006)
  • Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale
  • NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215–20005)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depression, outcome domains, patient expectations, informal caregivers, healthcare workers, core outcome set, bipolar depression, psychological suffering, motivation, social isolation, stigmatization, treatment safety, social representations, clinical trial results
MeSH terms
Physical Functional Performance, Adult, Austria, Depression, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, North America, Pain, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Isolation, Stereotyping, Caregivers, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review