Patient experiences of treatment-resistant depression (TRD): A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) occurs when depressive symptoms persist after a patient has tried at least two antidepressants at an appropriate dose for an adequate length of time, as judged by their clinician. Understanding what it is like to live with and seek care for TRD can inform treatment planning and contribute to health technology assessments for depression-related therapies. Our objective was to systematically review this evidence through an investigation of qualitative literature about the experiences of people who have TRD. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science Core Collection. Publications eligible for inclusion were English-language primary empirical qualitative studies or the qualitative component of mixed methods studies examining adults' experiences with TRD or with specific treatment options for TRD. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data, as well as critically appraised included studies using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) instrument. This review was guided by integrative meta-synthesis. Data analysis consisted of a staged coding process similar to grounded theory. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO prior to the search (record ID: CRD42022356813). Sixteen studies were included from screening 18,568 results. Two studies focused on the overall experience of TRD and 14 explored experiences of specific treatments such as ketamine. Patients described the depressive symptoms they experienced, a sense of futility and desperation to find an effective treatment, and their experiences with new, sometimes experimental, therapies including deriving benefits beyond the clinical. Overall, few studies have examined the patient experience of TRD, reflecting the clinical complexity of this patient population. As most literature coalesced around experiences of specific treatments, greater examination of the overall experience of TRD is needed to inform clinical practice, and administrative and funding policy decisions for interventions that may be effective for this patient population. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022356813.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".