Examining the Impact of Patient-Reported Hope for Improvement and Patient Satisfaction with Clinician/Treatment on the Outcome of Major Depressive Disorder Treatment

Abstract

Aims: This analysis aims at examining if patient-reported variables such as hope for improvement and patient satisfaction with clinician/treatment could influence the outcome major depressive disorder (MDD) treatment, namely depression remission, in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Place and Duration of Study: The STAR*D study was conducted at 18 primary care and 23 psychiatric care settings in the United States from 2001-2007 and was funded by the National Institute of Mental health (NIMH). The analysis contained in this manuscript was conceptualized at the Cedars-Sinai Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences and performed at the UCLA School of Public Health. Methodology: Using data from STAR*D, the current study used logistic regression and survival analyses to examine the relationship between depressive symptoms remission and two sets of self-reported factors: Hope for improvement and, Patient satisfaction with treatment/clinician. Results: First, more than 90% of STAR*D patients reported having high hope for improvement (agree or strongly agree) and more than 66% endorsed high satisfaction with clinicians and more than 50% expressed high satisfaction with treatments (very or mostly satisfied). Second, hope for improvement was predictive of depression remission (p<0.05). Third, satisfaction with clinician/treatment, did not predict remission. Conclusion: This study shows the impact that patients’ subjective hope for improvement can have on predicting depression remission in contrast to satisfaction with clinician/treatment. Future studies should prospectively incorporate patients’ subjective attitudes regarding hope for improvement and satisfaction with clinicians and treatments as mediators and moderators of MDD treatment success.