Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35262620›Full record

SynthesisJAMA psychiatry2022

Socioeconomic Indicators of Treatment Prognosis for Adults With Depression: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

Joshua E J Buckman, Rob Saunders, Joshua Stott, Zachary D Cohen, Laura-Louise Arundell, Thalia C Eley, Steven D Hollon, Tony Kendrick, Gareth Ambler, Edward Watkins and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
16.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 12 institutions in 3 countries.

Joshua E J BuckmanCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Rob SaundersCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Joshua StottCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Zachary D CohenDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, Los Angeles.
Laura-Louise ArundellCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Thalia C EleySocial, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Steven D HollonDepartment of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Tony KendrickPrimary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Gareth AmblerStatistical Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Edward WatkinsDepartment of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Simon GilbodyDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
David KesslerCentre for Academic Mental Health, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Nicola WilesCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
David RichardsInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter College of Medicine and Health, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Sally BrabynDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Elizabeth LittlewoodDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Robert J DeRubeisUniversity of Pennsylvania College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology, Philadelphia.
Glyn LewisDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Stephen PillingCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE), Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
University College London · GBUniversity of York · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GBSt Pancras Hospital · GBUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity of the Sciences · USVanderbilt University · USWestern Norway University of Applied Sciences · NO

Funding

Wellcome Trust 201292/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Socioeconomic factors are associated with the prevalence of depression, but their associations with prognosis are unknown. Understanding this association would aid in the clinical management of depression. Objective: To determine whether employment status, financial strain, housing status, and educational attainment inform prognosis for adults treated for depression in primary care, independent of treatment and after accounting for clinical prognostic factors. Data Sources: The Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception to October 8, 2021. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized clinical trials that used the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R; the most common comprehensive screening and diagnostic measure of depressive and anxiety symptoms in primary care randomized clinical trials), measured socioeconomic factors at baseline, and sampled patients with unipolar depression who sought treatment for depression from general physicians/practitioners or who scored 12 or more points on the CIS-R. Exclusion criteria included patients with depression secondary to a personality or psychotic disorder or neurologic condition, studies of bipolar or psychotic depression, studies that included children or adolescents, and feasibility studies. Studies were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria by 2 reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted and cleaned by data managers for each included study, further cleaned by multiple reviewers, and cross-checked by study chief investigators. Risk of bias and quality were assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-Individual Participant Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Depressive symptoms at 3 to 4 months after baseline. Results: This systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis identified 9 eligible studies that provided individual patient data for 4864 patients (mean [SD] age, 42.5 (14.0) years; 3279 women [67.4%]). The 2-stage random-effects meta-analysis end point depressive symptom scale scores were 28% (95% CI, 20%-36%) higher for unemployed patients than for employed patients and 18% (95% CI, 6%-30%) lower for patients who were homeowners than for patients living with family or friends, in hostels, or homeless, which were equivalent to 4.2 points (95% CI, 3.6-6.2 points) and 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.1-4.9 points) on the Beck Depression Inventory II, respectively. Financial strain and educational attainment were associated with prognosis independent of treatment, but unlike employment and housing status, there was little evidence of associations after adjusting for clinical prognostic factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that unemployment was associated with a poor prognosis whereas home ownership was associated with improved prognosis. These differences were clinically important and independent of the type of treatment received. Interventions that address employment or housing difficulties could improve outcomes for patients with depression.

Indexed as

DepressionMajor Depressive DisorderAdolescentAdultAnxietyChildFemaleHumansMalePrognosisSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID35262620
PMCPMC8908224
OpenAlexW4220916393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.