MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401223358 · doi:10.1192/bjo.2024.123

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Measurement-Based Care for Major Depressive Disorder in Pakistan

2024· article· en· W4401223358 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Nigah, Nasim Chaudhry, Nusrat Husain, Imran B. Chaudhry, Ishrat Husain

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMajor depressive disorderChecklistRandomized controlled trialMirtazapineClinical trialFamily medicineDepression (economics)PsychiatryRandomizationHealth careMental healthInformed consentMoodAlternative medicineAntidepressantPsychologyAnxietyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims A worldwide public health concern is major depressive disorder (MDD) with limited availability and access to evidence-based treatment in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Pakistan. Measurement-based care (MBC) is a low-cost strategy to improve clinical outcomes for people with MDD that involves the systematic administration of validated outcome measures to inform treatment decisions. However, research on MBC's effectiveness in LMICs is scarce. This paper aims to evaluate the feasibility and clinical effectiveness of MBC against standard care for patients with moderate to severe MDD in Pakistan. Methods This is a multicenter randomized control trial. Participants (n = 154) of 18 to 65 years of age recruited from psychiatric units of teaching and non-teaching hospitals and primary care settings such as General Physician (GP) clinics and Basic Health Units (BHUs) from 6 cities were randomised to receive MBC (guided by a schedule), or standard treatment (guided by clinicians’ judgement). Patients were prescribed by treating clinicians either with mirtazapine (7.5–45 mg/day) or paroxetine (10–60 mg/day) for a period of 12 weeks. All participants, regardless of their treatment arm, were followed-up till 24 weeks post-randomization and assessed for severity of depression. Side effects were regularly monitored using standard checklist. Outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. Results The Pakistani National Bioethics Committee (NBC) has granted complete ethical approval. A total of 15 psychiatrists and 4 General Practitioners (GPs) were approached and invited to participate in the study and consent was given by 9 psychiatrists and 2 GPs. A total of 351 patients were screened against eligibility criteria and 177 were eligible to participate. A total of 154 eligible participants consented (87%) to participate and were recruited and randomized into the trial. A total of 131 randomized participants (85%) completed 24-month follow-up. Only two adverse events were reported during the trial period. Recruitment, retention and safety analysis indicates feasibility of the trial in Pakistani healthcare context. The data are being analyzed for effectiveness outcomes. Conclusion It is essential to investigate the viability, usefulness, and efficacy of MBC for MDD in low-resource settings due to mounting data from high-income settings confirming its effectiveness. The planned trial's outcomes may help build a scalable, low-cost method for effectively improving outcomes for MDD patients in Pakistan.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207