Social support, attachment and externalizing behavior in forensic patients with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

This study was designed to provide more insight into the relationship between social support and externalizing behavior in forensic patients with ADHD. Because ADHD is highly associated with psychosocial impairment, we expected poor social support and attachment insecurity (i.e., preoccupied, fearful, and dismissive attachment) to be associated with higher levels of externalizing behaviors in forensic patients with ADHD. Self-reports of 32 forensic male outpatients with ADHD (M age = 35.34) were compared with self-reports of healthy (n = 32; M age = 33.84), and 'at risk' control males with (a history of) psychological problems (n = 30; M age = 36.47) from the general population. In addition, associations between social support, attachment and externalizing behaviors (i.e., aggression, antisociality, anger and hostility) were examined within the sample as a whole. Analyses of variance showed that forensic patients with ADHD had higher levels of externalizing behaviors and insecure attachment, and lower levels of secure attachment compared to both healthy and at risk controls. Multivariate regression analyses showed that social support was not associated with any of the externalizing behaviors, after accounting for attachment. In contrast, insecure attachment was associated with higher levels of all externalizing behaviors examined. Finally, insecure attachment best explained antisociality and hostility, suggesting that attachment is more important than other psychopathological risk factors that distinguish the different groups.

[The generalisability of depression trials to clinical practice]. / Generaliseerbaarheid van depressietrials naar de dagelijkse praktijk.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based therapies for major depression, as described in the clinical guidelines, are based on results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). So far, it is not known to what extent results of RCTs on major depression can be generalised to 'real life' clinical practice. AIM: To compare treatment results for major depression from RCTs (efficacy) and results from daily practice (effectiveness); furthermore, to assess to what extent eligibility criteria and (un)intended selection by recruitment procedures influences treatment outcomes in daily practice. METHOD: In a 'real life' patient population (n=1653) suffering from major depression (established by the MINIplus) and assessed in routine outcome monitoring at baseline, we explored how many patients met the eligibility criteria for antidepressant and psychotherapy efficacy trials. Furthermore we explored to what extent RCT participants differed in socio-demographic and socio-economic status from 'daily practice' patients. 626 of the ROM patients had at least one follow-up assessment. In this follow-up group we compared the treatment outcome (assessed by the MADRS and BDI-II) to the results of 15 meta-analyses of RCTs. We also explored to what extent patient selection based on eligibility criteria and socio-demographic/socio-economic status influenced treatment outcome. RESULTS: Remission percentages (21-27% in ROM versus 34-58% in RCTs) and effect sizes (0.85 in ROM versus 1.71 in RCTs, within-group data) were lower in daily practice than in RCTs. ROM patients differed from RCT participants in many disease-specific and socio-economic features. These differences are due to patient selection in RCTs. However, the influence of patient selection based on eligibility criteria and socio-demographic differences in treatment outcome were very modest (explained variances 1-11%). CONCLUSION: Treatment success for major depression is lower in daily practice than in RCTs and 'real life' patients differ in many features from RCT participants. However, these differences cannot explain the difference between efficacy and effectiveness. The generalisability of the results of depression trials to daily practice might not be jeopardised by the use of eligibility criteria and recruitment procedures to the extent suggested in earlier research.

Influence of sociodemographic and socioeconomic features on treatment outcome in RCTs versus daily psychiatric practice.

PURPOSE: Sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics of participants in antidepressant and psychotherapy efficacy trials (AETs and PETs) for major depressive disorder (MDD) may limit the generalizability of the results. We compared trial participants with daily practice patients. We subsequently assessed the influence of socio-demographic and socioeconomic status on treatment outcome in daily practice. METHODS: Data on daily practice patients were derived through routine outcome monitoring (ROM). We included 626 patients with MDD according to the MINIplus. Distributions of age, gender, race, marital status and employment status were compared with participants in 63 selected AETs and PETs. Influence of these features on treatment outcome was explored through multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Trial participants were older, more often male (diff. 4 %, p = 0.05), white (diff. 4 %, p < 0.001) and not married (diff. 7 %, p = 0.003). Although significant, most differences were relatively small. However, the difference in employment status was striking: 34 % of the ROM patients were currently working versus 68 % of the trial participants (diff. 34 %, p < 0.001). Being employed contributed to a positive treatment outcome: OR 1.8 for response [50 % reduction of Montgomery Asberg Rating Scale for Depression (MADRS)], OR 1.9 for remission (MADRS ≤10). CONCLUSIONS: Employment status should be taken into account while interpreting results from randomized controlled trials and as predictor of treatment success in daily practice.

Routine outcome monitoring in the Netherlands: practical experiences with a web-based strategy for the assessment of treatment outcome in clinical practice.

Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) is a method devised to systematically collect data on the effectiveness of treatments in everyday clinical practice. ROM involves documenting the outcome of treatments through repeated assessments. Assistants are employed who perform a baseline assessment comprising a standardized diagnostic interview, administration of rating scales and completion of several self-report measures by the patient. At fixed time intervals, assessments are repeated. Dedicated Web-based software has been developed to assist in this task. ROM informs therapists and patients on the severity of the complaints at intake, and the waxing and waning of symptoms over the course of treatment. Researchers can use ROM for effectiveness research, and managers can use it for benchmarking. The use of ROM for research is illustrated by presenting data on the diagnostic status of patients participating in ROM and data on treatment outcome of a subgroup of patients (with panic disorder) in our database. The results show that implementation of ROM is feasible, and after some initial reservations, most therapists now consider ROM to be a necessary and important adjunct to the clinical treatment. In addition, ROM furthers research as the data can be used to study the phenomenology of psychiatric disorders and the outcome of treatments delivered in everyday practice.

The generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials to routine psychiatric out-patient practice.

BACKGROUND: Generalizability of antidepressant efficacy trials (AETs) to daily practice is questioned because of their very stringent patient selection. This study aims to determine eligibility for AETs of out-patients suffering from major depression in a routine out-patient setting and investigates influence of eligibility on treatment outcome. METHOD: Data collection (n = 1653) was performed through routine outcome monitoring by independent trained research nurses. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology, short Dutch version were used for diagnostic assessment and personality pathology screening. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was used for assessment of baseline severity and treatment outcome. Eligibility was assessed by stepwise application of commonly used exclusion criteria. Influence of eligibility on treatment outcome was investigated in a subsample of the 1653 patients who had at least one follow-up assessment (n = 626). Eligible and non-eligible patients were compared on proportion of response (50% reduction) and remission on MADRS (MADRS ≤ 10). RESULTS: Altogether, 17-25% of the patients were eligible for AETs. The most common reasons for exclusion would be 'not meeting minimum baseline severity' and 'presence of co-morbid Axis I disorder'. Eligible and non-eligible patients did not differ in treatment outcome. Only 'meeting the minimum baseline severity' is associated with remission. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of 'real life' out-patients are not eligible for AETs. However, the influence of eligibility on treatment outcome seems to be small. This suggests that stringent patient selection by eligibility criteria is not the major reason for lack of generalizability of AETs. Exclusion of less severely depressed patients from the analyses resulted in better treatment outcome. Milder depression is highly prevalent in daily practice and more research into treatment effectiveness in milder depression is warranted.