IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v12y2019i5d10.1007_s40271-019-00369-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Clinical Trial Exit Interview Data in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression

Author

Listed:
  • Sandy Lewis

    (RTI Health Solutions)

  • Carla Romano

    (RTI Health Solutions)

  • Geert Bruecker

    (Independent Hospital and Healthcare Professional)

  • James W. Murrough

    (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai)

  • Richard Shelton

    (University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine)

  • Jaskaran B. Singh

    (Janssen Research and Development)

  • Carol Jamieson

    (Janssen Research and Development)

Abstract

Background Clinical outcome assessments may not fully capture patients’ perspectives of treatment benefit or tolerability. Incorporating individual exit interviews might enhance the description of the patient experience of drug effects. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate the patient treatment experience in a clinical trial of treatment-resistant depression utilizing exit interview methodology. Methods Individual patient interviews were conducted with subjects exiting two phase II clinical trials involving investigational agents for treatment-resistant depression. Interviews included standardized questions about patients’ perceptions of health changes and interest in continued use of the investigational agent. Constant comparative analysis of blinded data was used to identify, code, and categorize the data followed by a subsequent analysis of unblinded data to evaluate any potential treatment differences. Results Ninety subjects completed exit interviews across the two trials. Most subjects (90%, Trial 2001; 74%, Trial 2002) reported at least one health change. Most subjects rated these changes to be at least moderately important, with most being rated “very important” to “extremely important.” After unblinding, participants receiving active therapy alone reported most of the positive health changes (80% of overall positive changes in Trial 2001, 89% in Trial 2002), whereas patients taking placebo alone reported the majority of negative health changes (57% in Trial 2002). Positive changes included not only anticipated changes in mood but also potential cognitive benefits such as mental alertness, improved sleep, and better concentration. Conclusions Standardized interview data provided direct patient insight into the treatment experience from the patient perspective. Data from these interviews assisted in phase III endpoint selection by providing data on relevant concepts in the target treatment-resistant depression population receiving a new treatment, thus enabling the selection of tools to capture noted treatment effects and, by eliminating irrelevant constructs or measures, thereby reducing data “noise.” Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01640080; NCT01627782.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandy Lewis & Carla Romano & Geert Bruecker & James W. Murrough & Richard Shelton & Jaskaran B. Singh & Carol Jamieson, 2019. "Analysis of Clinical Trial Exit Interview Data in Patients with Treatment-Resistant Depression," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 527-537, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00369-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-019-00369-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-019-00369-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-019-00369-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hennie Boeije, 2002. "A Purposeful Approach to the Constant Comparative Method in the Analysis of Qualitative Interviews," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 391-409, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maider Belintxon & Nisha Dogra & Paula McGee & Maria Jesus Pumar‐Mendez & Olga Lopez‐Dicastillo, 2020. "Encounters between children's nurses and culturally diverse parents in primary health care," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 273-282, June.
    2. Julia Veidt & Steven Lam & Hung Nguyen-Viet & Tran Thi Tuyet-Hanh & Huong Nguyen-Mai & Sherilee L. Harper, 2018. "Is Agricultural Intensification a Growing Health Concern? Perceptions from Waste Management Stakeholders in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, November.
    3. Iversen, Sara V. & Naomi, van der Velden & Convery, Ian & Mansfield, Lois & Holt, Claire D.S., 2022. "Why understanding stakeholder perspectives and emotions is important in upland woodland creation – A case study from Cumbria, UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Komppula, Raija, 2014. "The role of individual entrepreneurs in the development of competitiveness for a rural tourism destination – A case study," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 361-371.
    5. Anna Romiti & Mario Vecchio & Chiara Milani & Gino Sartor, 2023. "Italian healthcare organizations facing new dimensions: changes in governance structure," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 893-921, September.
    6. Saint Ville, Arlette S. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Phillip, Leroy E., 2017. "How do stakeholder interactions influence national food security policy in the Caribbean? The case of Saint Lucia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 53-64.
    7. Martha A Abshire & Marie T Nolan & Sydney M Dy & Joseph J Gallo, 2020. "What matters when doctors die: A qualitative study of family perspectives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-12, June.
    8. Kranke, Derrick & Floersch, Jerry & Townsend, Lisa & Munson, Michelle, 2010. "Stigma experience among adolescents taking psychiatric medication," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-505, April.
    9. Ejiogu, Amanze & Ambituuni, Ambisisi & Ejiogu, Chibuzo, 2021. "Accounting for accounting’s role in the neoliberalization processes of social housing in England: A Bourdieusian perspective," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    10. Antony S. Cheng & Lisa Dale, 2020. "Achieving Adaptive Governance of Forest Wildfire Risk Using Competitive Grants: Insights From the Colorado Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Program," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(5), pages 657-686, September.
    11. Tineke Schoot & Ireen Proot & Marja Legius & Ruud ter Meulen & Luc de Witte, 2006. "Client-Centered Home Care," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 15(4), pages 231-254, November.
    12. María Gloria Villarejo-Rodríguez & Beatriz Rodríguez-Martín, 2019. "A Qualitative Study of Parents’ Conceptualizations on Fever in Children Aged 0 to 12 Years," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-11, August.
    13. Martínez Álvarez, Melisa & Borghi, Josephine & Acharya, Arnab & Vassall, Anna, 2016. "Is Development Assistance for Health fungible? Findings from a mixed methods case study in Tanzania," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 161-169.
    14. Claire L O’Reilly & Diane Paul & Rebecca McCahon & Sumitra Shankar & Alan Rosen & Thomas Ramzy, 2019. "Stigma and discrimination in individuals with severe and persistent mental illness in an assertive community treatment team: Perceptions of families and healthcare professionals," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 65(7-8), pages 570-579, November.
    15. Damian, April Joy & Gallo, Joseph J. & Mendelson, Tamar, 2018. "Barriers and facilitators for access to mental health services by traumatized youth," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 273-278.
    16. Keith A. Houghton & Christine Jubb & Michael Kend, 2011. "Materiality in the context of audit: the real expectations gap," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(6), pages 482-500, June.
    17. Gretchen Keller & Alefia Merchant & Carol Common & Andrea M Laizner, 2017. "Patient experiences of in‐hospital preparations for follow‐up care at home," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(11-12), pages 1485-1494, June.
    18. Cartwright, Severina & Davies, Iain & Archer-Brown, Chris, 2021. "Managing relationships on social media in business-to-business organisations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 120-134.
    19. Snejana Bacheva & Daniela Petrova & Iavor Bachev, 2019. "The Joint Audit in Bulgaria – Issues and Prospects," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 4, pages 615-626, December.
    20. Bell, Charles, 2020. "“Maybe if they let us tell the story I wouldn’t have gotten suspended”: Understanding Black students’ and parents’ perceptions of school discipline," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:12:y:2019:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-019-00369-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.