4.2 Article

Treatment patterns in inpatient depression care

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1487

Keywords

latent class analysis; complex interventions; inpatient treatment; depressive disorders; health services

Categories

Funding

  1. German Ministry of Education and Research [01GY1132]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to identify latent patterns of treatment combinations in inpatient depression care. A secondary analysis of routinely collected data on inpatient depression treatment from 2133 patients was conducted. Exploratory latent class modeling was used to identify distinct classes of treatment combinations based on antidepressant medication, psychotherapeutic interventions, and additional treatments. The classes were compared with regard to patient characteristics and treatment outcomes. Eight different classes of inpatient treatment combinations could be identified: 22.8% of the patients were treated with a combination labelled standard modern antidepressants, 14.6% with standard tricyclic antidepressants, 12.2% with high intensity innovative strategies, 12.1% with standard selective-reuptake-inhibitors, and 11.6% with low intensity, 9.6% with somatic, 8.8% with high intensity traditional, and 8.3% with high intensity psychosocial care, respectively. Patients treated with different patterns of interventions differed statistically significantly regarding demographic and clinical characteristics. Responder rates ranged from 68.4% to 86.6% across treatment classes. The presented attempt of empirical modeling of a complex multifactorial intervention by means of latent class analysis proved to be a promising way of capturing the complexity of routine inpatient depression treatment. The identified classes of treatment combinations may provide relevant information for a re-evaluation and improvement of inpatient depression treatment strategies. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available