Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (Canmat) Consensus Recommendations for Functional Outcomes in Major Depressive Disorder
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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