How much is enough? Considering minimally important change in youth mental health outcomes

Systematic Review: The Measurement Properties of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire and Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr

OBJECTIVE

The Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) and the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Junior (SIQ-Jr) were designed to capture suicidal ideation in adolescents and are often used in clinical trials. Our aim was to identify and appraise the published literature with respect to the validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic review following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to identify, appraise, and synthesize published literature on measurement properties and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 16, 2023, to identify sources relevant to our aim.

RESULTS

We identified 15 sources meeting our eligibility criteria. The body of literature did not meet COSMIN standards to make recommendations for use with regard to these measurement instruments.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed, with a focus on content validity and structural validity, prior to recommending the SIQ and SIQ-Jr for use in clinical practice and in clinical trials. No specific grant funding was used for this review.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

In this systematic review, authors analyzed 15 sources examining measurement properties of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire and Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr. Both measures are designed to capture suicidal ideation in adolescents and are used in clinical practice and clinical trials. The authors identified sufficient evidence for convergent validity for both measures. Authors concluded that further research is needed to support content validity, structural validity as a unidimensional scale (as they are often used) as well as their internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminative validity, predictive validity, and interpretability of these measures. The authors also emphasize the need to consider the limitations of these measures for researchers studying suicidal ideation and clinicians using these measures in their assessments of young people.

How do we know whether treatment has failed? Paradoxical outcomes in counseling with young people

Background

In both routine practice contexts and research studies, evidence from standardized self-report symptom measures, administered pre- and post-treatment, is predominantly used to determine whether psychotherapy has been successful. Understanding the nature of unsuccessful psychotherapy requires an ability to evaluate the credibility of outcome data generated by such techniques. An important body of research has identified discrepancies between outcomes assessed through symptom measures and those obtained from other sources. However, not enough is known about the extent to which such paradoxical outcomes exist.

Objective

This study analyzes the relationship between outcomes, as assessed by a standardized self-report measure, and as assessed by ratings of young people's descriptions of change at post-counseling interviews.

Methods

Participants were 50 young people (13-16 years old) who had taken part in a trial of up to 10 weeks of school-based humanistic counseling. Our primary standardized measure was the Young Person's CORE (YP-CORE). To assess young people's experiences of counseling change, three independent raters scrutinized transcripts of post-counseling interviews, and scored levels of helpfulness on a 1 (Not at all helpful) to 10 (Extremely helpful) scale. Inter-rater reliabilities were 0.94 (Cronbach's Alpha) and 0.96 (McDonald's Omega). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore relationships between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures, i.e., satisfaction with counseling (ESQ) and the Goal-Based-Outcome Tool (GBO), and process measures, i.e., the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-S) and the Barret Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI).

Results

Multilevel analysis indicated that helpfulness ratings were not significantly associated with changes in YP-CORE scores. Analyzed categorically, 38% of those showing reliable improvement on the standardized measure were below the median for self-described helpfulness, and 47% of those not showing reliable change were at or above the median for self-described helpfulness. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated closer correlations between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures (ESQ and GBO), and between helpfulness ratings and process measures (WAI-S and BLRI).

Discussion

Our results raise questions about reliance on symptom change outcome measures for defining treatment success and failure, given their disparity with clients' own descriptions of the helpfulness of therapy. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

Primary outcome reporting in clinical trials for older adults with depression

BACKGROUND

Findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are synthesised through meta-analyses, which inform evidence-based decision-making. When key details regarding trial outcomes are not fully reported, knowledge synthesis and uptake of findings into clinical practice are impeded.

AIMS

Our study assessed reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs for older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHOD

Trials published between 2011 and 2021, which assessed any intervention for adults aged ≥65 years with a MDD diagnosis, and that specified a single primary outcome were considered for inclusion in our study. Outcome reporting assessment was conducted independently and in duplicate with a 58-item checklist, used in developing the CONSORT-Outcomes statement, and information in each RCT was scored as 'fully reported', 'partially reported' or 'not reported', as applicable.

RESULTS

Thirty-one of 49 RCTs reported one primary outcome and were included in our study. Most trials (71%) did not fully report over half of the 58 checklist items. Items pertaining to outcome analyses and interpretation were fully reported by 65% or more of trials. Items reported less frequently included: outcome measurement instrument properties (varied from 3 to 30%) and justification of the criteria used to define clinically meaningful change (23%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in how geriatric depression RCTs report primary outcomes, with omission of details regarding measurement, selection, justification and definition of clinically meaningful change. Outcome reporting deficiencies may hinder replicability and synthesis efforts that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making. The CONSORT-Outcomes guideline should be used when reporting geriatric depression RCTs.