Counting What Counts: The Case for Harmonized Outcomes in Child and Youth Mental Health Research

Systematic Review: Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used to Measure Depression Symptom Severity in Adolescents With Depression

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of 12 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression. Depression symptom severity was chosen as the outcome of focus given its importance as an outcome to measure in adolescents with depression across clinical trials and/or care.

METHOD

MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from year of inception up to December 7, 2023. Study appraisal (ie, risk of bias), evaluation of measurement properties, and evidence synthesis followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Included studies evaluated at least 1 of 9 measurement properties as detailed in the COSMIN taxonomy within a reported sample or subgroup of youth ages 12 to 24 years, with at least 40% meeting criteria for any depressive disorder.

RESULTS

Of the 15,560 records identified, 31 studies for 7 PROMs were included in the COSMIN appraisal. Although several PROMs have the potential to accurately measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression, at this time none of the PROMs can be recommended for use without further evaluative work. High-quality evidence was generally lacking, largely due to few or inconsistent findings, small sample sizes, and other methodological concerns.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review of the measurement properties of 12 PROMs used to measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression found that none of the PROMs can be recommended for use until further evaluative work is conducted. Clinicians and researchers should proceed with caution when using these PROMs.

DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION STATEMENT

One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented sexual and/or gender groups in science. We actively worked to promote sex and gender balance in our author group. We actively worked to promote inclusion of historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science in our author group. The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work.

Common measures in mental health: a joint initiative by funders and journals

There is notable heterogeneity in how clinical and phenotypic data are measured by mental health researchers. There is a proliferation of self-report measures (eg, over 280 for depression alone), meaning it is challenging for researchers to compare findings across different studies from different laboratories. To begin to address this issue, a consortium of mental health research funders and journals has launched the Common Measures in Mental Health Science Initiative. The purpose of this endeavour is to identify common measures for mental health conditions that funders and journals can require all researchers to collect, in addition to any other measures they require for their specific study. These measures would not necessarily capture the full range of experiences of a given condition but could be used to link and compare across studies with different designs in different contexts. This Health Policy outlines the rationale, objectives, and potential challenges of this initiative, which aims to enhance the rigour and comparability of mental health research by promoting the adoption of standardised measures.

Predictors, Moderators, and Mediators Associated With Treatment Outcome in Randomized Clinical Trials Among Adolescents With Depression: A Scoping Review

Importance

The application of precision medicine principles for the treatment of depressive disorders in adolescents requires an examination of the variables associated with depression outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Objective

To describe predictors, moderators, and mediators associated with outcomes in RCTs for the treatment of depressive disorders in adolescents.

Evidence Review

A scoping review of RCTs for the treatment of depression in adolescents was conducted. Databases searched included MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL. Included publications tested predictors, moderators, and/or mediators associated with depression symptom outcomes (eg, symptom reduction, response, remission) in RCTs pertaining to the treatment of adolescents, ages 13 to 17 years. Predictors were defined as variables that were associated with depression outcomes, independent of treatment group. Moderators were defined as baseline variables that were associated with differential outcomes between treatment groups. Mediators were defined by a formal mediation analysis. In duplicate, variables were extracted and coded with respect to analysis type (univariable or multivariable), statistical significance, direction of effect size, reporting of a priori hypotheses, and adjustment for multiple comparisons. Aggregated results were summarized by variable domain and RCT sample.

Findings

Eighty-one articles reporting on variables associated with outcomes across 33 RCTs were identified, including studies of biological (10 RCTs), psychosocial (18 RCTs), and combined (4 RCTs) treatments as well as a service delivery model (1 RCT). Fifty-three variable domains were tested as baseline predictors of depression outcome, 41 as moderators, 19 as postbaseline predictors, and 5 as mediators. Variable domains that were reported as significant in at least 3 RCTs included age, sex/gender, baseline depression severity, early response to treatment, sleep changes, parent-child conflict, overall psychopathology, suicidal ideation, hopelessness, functional impairment, attendance at therapy sessions, and history of trauma. Two publications reported a priori hypotheses and adjustment for multiple comparisons, both finding that baseline depression severity and family conflict were associated with poorer outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

This review identified commonly researched variables requiring more scrutiny as well as underresearched variables to inform future study designs. Further efforts to discover predictors, moderators, and mediators associated with treatment response have great potential to optimize care for adolescents with depression.

The challenge of ensuring affordability, sustainability, consistency, and adaptability in the common metrics agenda

Mental health research grapples with research waste and stunted field progression caused by inconsistent outcome measurement across studies and clinical settings, which means there is no common language for considering findings. Although recognising that no gold standard measures exist and that all existing measures are flawed in one way or another, anxiety and depression research is spearheading a common metrics movement to harmonise measurement, with several initiatives over the past 5 years recommending the consistent use of specific scales to allow read-across of measurements between studies. For this approach to flourish, however, common metrics must be acceptable and adaptable to a range of contexts and populations, and global access should be as easy and affordable as possible, including in low-income countries. Within a measurement landscape dominated by fixed proprietary measures and with competing views of what should be measured, achieving this goal poses a range of challenges. In this Personal View, we consider tensions between affordability, sustainability, consistency, and adaptability that, if not addressed, risk undermining the common metrics agenda. We outline a three-pronged way forward that involves funders taking more direct responsibility for measure development and dissemination; a move towards managing measure dissemination and adaptation via open-access measure hubs; and transitioning from fixed questionnaires to item banks. We argue that now is the time to start thinking of mental health metrics as 21st century tools to be co-owned and co-created by the mental health community, with support from dedicated infrastructure, coordinating bodies, and funders.

Research Review: Recommendations for reporting on treatment trials for child and adolescent anxiety disorders - an international consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Anxiety disorders in children and young people are common and bring significant personal and societal costs. Over the last two decades, there has been a substantial increase in research evaluating psychological and pharmacological treatments for anxiety disorders in children and young people and exciting and novel research has continued as the field strives to improve efficacy and effectiveness, and accessibility of interventions. This increase in research brings potential to draw together data across studies to compare treatment approaches and advance understanding of what works, how, and for whom. There are challenges to these efforts due largely to variation in studies' outcome measures and variation in the way study characteristics are reported, making it difficult to compare and/or combine studies, and this is likely to lead to faulty conclusions. Studies particularly vary in their reliance on child, parent, and/or assessor-based ratings across a range of outcomes, including remission of anxiety diagnosis, symptom reduction, and other domains of functioning (e.g., family relationships, peer relationships).

METHODS

To address these challenges, we convened a series of international activities that brought together the views of key stakeholders (i.e., researchers, mental health professionals, young people, parents/caregivers) to develop recommendations for outcome measurement to be used in treatment trials for anxiety disorders in children and young people.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This article reports the results of these activities and offers recommendations for selection and reporting of outcome measures to (a) guide future research and (b) improve communication of what has been measured and reported. We offer these recommendations to promote international consistency in trial reporting and to enable the field to take full advantage of the great opportunities that come from data sharing going forward.

Systematic Review: The Measurement Properties of the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised in Adolescents With Major Depressive Disorder

OBJECTIVE

To systematically appraise existing evidence of the measurement properties of the Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) in adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD). The CDRS-R is the most commonly used scale in adolescent depression research, yet was originally designed for use in children 6 to 12 years old.

METHOD

Seven databases were searched for studies that evaluated the measurement properties of the CDRS-R in adolescents (ages 12-18 years). Of 65 studies screened by full-text, 6 were included. Measurement properties were appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. The COSMIN minimum requirements for recommending the use of an outcome measurement instrument are (1) evidence for sufficient content validity (any level of evidence), and (2) at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency.

RESULTS

Four studies assessed an English-language version of the CDRS-R; the other 2 assessed German and Korean versions, respectively. No study assessed content validity, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, or measurement error of the CDRS-R in adolescents with MDD. Low-quality evidence was found for sufficient construct validity (n = 4 studies) and responsiveness (n = 2 studies) assessed via comparator instruments. Very-low-quality evidence was found for sufficient interrater reliability (n = 2 studies). The results for structural validity (n = 3 studies) and internal consistency (n = 5 studies) were inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

It remains unclear whether the CDRS-R appropriately measures depressive symptom severity in adolescent MDD. Before use of the CDRS-R in adolescent MDD research can be recommended, evidence of sufficient psychometric properties in adolescents with MDD is needed.

Heterogeneity and Subtyping in Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Considerations for Emerging Research Using Person-Centered Computational Approaches

Few if any experts believe that existing psychiatric diagnostic categories included in DSM and ICD are actually discrete disease entities. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is emblematic of the problems in the existing psychiatric classification system. ADHD symptoms reliably cluster into two correlated dimensions in factor analysis. However, children with ADHD vary considerably in their symptom profiles, symptom trajectories, clinical outcomes, and biological and psychological correlates. Thus, the field has sought alternative approaches that harness the dimensions of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral functioning that underlie ADHD and other existing psychiatric categories to create informative phenotypes that improve clinical prediction and clarify etiology. Within ADHD, cognitive (neuropsychological) and temperament/personality features have received considerable attention. In some cases, subphenotypes based on these features appear to improve on existing classifications and could eventually be translated into clinical practice. This review summarizes findings from subphenotyping efforts in ADHD that use cognitive, emotion-related, and other features to highlight major considerations for research applying person-oriented approaches to inform an improved psychiatric nosology. Considerations related to feature selection, validation of newly proposed divisions, defining populations of interest, and incorporating a developmental perspective are discussed.

How have predictors, moderators, mediators, treatment response, remission and resistance been defined and measured in randomised controlled trials for adolescent depression? A scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Among randomised controlled trials for depressed adolescents, the extent of variation in how depressive symptom outcomes are defined is unknown. The variability in which potential predictors of these outcomes are tested is also unclear. This paper is a protocol describing the methods of a planned scoping review. The scoping review will examine and summarise how change in depressive symptoms have been described in RCT treatment studies to date. This review will report the measures used to describe change in depressive symptoms and whether the measure was used as a continuous or binary outcome or both. This review will describe how dichotomous outcome terms are defined to describe change in depression severity. This review will also examine predictors, moderators and mediators of change in depressive symptoms within RCTs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this paper, we describe the protocol for our scoping review. Following the format outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews, a research librarian will develop an operationalised search strategy, which we will apply to the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. We will search for papers from inception to 6 February 2020. A hand search for key citations will also be conducted. Investigator-raters will screen articles, first via the titles and abstracts and then through full-text reviews. We will include articles with randomised control design which assess the treatment of adolescents with major depressive disorder. We will systematically extract and synthesise prespecified data which includes: definition of depression used for participant inclusion, measures used to evaluate changes in depression, type of outcome used (continuous, binary or both), definitions of dichotomous terms to denote change in depression (eg, response, remission, recovery, etc) and reported predictors/moderators/mediators of change.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required. Findings will be presented in journal publications and at conferences.

Primary outcome reporting in adolescent depression clinical trials needs standardization

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD.

METHODS

RCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as "fully reported", "partially reported", or "not reported" for each checklist item, as applicable.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.