Cited by 62Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (Canmat) Consensus Recommendations for Functional Outcomes in Major Depressive Disorder

Lam, Raymond W., Parikh, Sagar V., Michalak, Erin E., Dewa, Carolyn S., Kennedy, Sidney H.·2015·Annals of Clinical Psychiatry

Abstract

Background Functional recovery is increasingly recognized as a priority in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), by both clinicians and patients. However, symptom improvement remains the focus of traditional clinical trials for MDD and of the regulatory approval process for new medications and other interventions. Many studies have shown that functional outcomes do not always correspond to symptom-based outcomes. Methods Representatives from clinical practice, professional societies, academia, industry, and government were invited by the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments to develop recommendations for the conceptualization and measurement of functional outcomes in clinical trials of MDD. Results Definitions and conceptual frameworks to guide assessment of functioning are described, as well as research methodology applicable to the broad spectrum of treatments for MDD. Examples are given for validated instruments, including patient-reported outcome measures. Strategies for knowledge translation and dissemination are suggested and consensus recommendations summarized. Conclusions As the societal burden and financial costs of MDD continue to escalate, so does the need for evidence-based and cost-effective interventions that demonstrate improvement in functioning. Routine assessment of functional outcomes will benefit not only individuals with MDD but also diverse stakeholders concerned about the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/104012371502700209

Cites

Statistics

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

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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 57 · Cited by 62

Authors
Lam, R. W., Parikh, S. V., Michalak, E. E., Dewa, C. S., & Kennedy, S. H.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Lam, Raymond W.
Venue
Annals of Clinical Psychiatry
Published
2015-05
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
142-149
ISSN
  • 1040-1237 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-3325
OpenAlex
W859807672
Cited by
62
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
5.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Clinical Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
major depressive disorder, functional outcome, functional recovery, functional assessment, patient-reported outcome measures, outcome measurement, clinical trials, consensus recommendations, knowledge translation, cost-effectiveness, symptom improvement
MeSH terms
Canada, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Advisory Committees, Consensus

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