Structure and Connectivity of Depressive Symptom Networks Corresponding to Early Treatment Response.

Adolescents Depression Network analysis Network connectivity Treatment response

Journal

EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Historique:
received: 12 10 2018
revised: 14 02 2019
accepted: 25 02 2019
entrez: 14 6 2019
pubmed: 14 6 2019
medline: 14 6 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

There are suggestions that denser network connectivity (i.e., the strength of associations between individual symptoms) may be a prognostic indicator of poor treatment response in depression. We sought to examine this aspect of depressive symptom networks in the context of early responses to treatment in adolescents. Routine psychiatric data were obtained for child/adolescent service users who underwent at least three treatment sessions in publicly funded services in England between 2011 and 2015 (N = 3017, 78% female; mean age [SD] = 14.43 years [1.75]). Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale at presentation, and again after three treatment sessions. Treatment response was determined using the Reliable Change Index. Network analysis was used to compare the depressive symptom structure and connectivity of sub-samples who, after three treatment sessions had: 1) positively responded (n = 566), 2) not reliably changed (n = 2277), and 3) reliably deteriorated (n = 174), using matched samples to control for baseline severity. Overall connectivity (i.e., the summed total of weighted connections) was significantly weaker for the positive treatment response group at baseline (compared with unchanged and deteriorated groups), however, this group saw the largest increase in connectivity over the course of treatment. With regard to the overall importance of specific symptoms within the networks, fatigue was highest in strength for the unchanged and deteriorated groups, whereas low mood was highest in strength for the improved group. This study demonstrates that adolescents who respond early to treatment for depression are characterised by symptom networks that are less densely connected initially, yet increase in connectivity over the course of treatment. This may be indicative of 'positive spirals' whereby improvement in one symptom triggers improvements in other symptoms, thereby increasing symptom-symptom associations even as severity decreases. The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust grant 204366/Z/16/Z. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
There are suggestions that denser network connectivity (i.e., the strength of associations between individual symptoms) may be a prognostic indicator of poor treatment response in depression. We sought to examine this aspect of depressive symptom networks in the context of early responses to treatment in adolescents.
METHODS METHODS
Routine psychiatric data were obtained for child/adolescent service users who underwent at least three treatment sessions in publicly funded services in England between 2011 and 2015 (N = 3017, 78% female; mean age [SD] = 14.43 years [1.75]). Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale at presentation, and again after three treatment sessions. Treatment response was determined using the Reliable Change Index. Network analysis was used to compare the depressive symptom structure and connectivity of sub-samples who, after three treatment sessions had: 1) positively responded (n = 566), 2) not reliably changed (n = 2277), and 3) reliably deteriorated (n = 174), using matched samples to control for baseline severity.
FINDINGS RESULTS
Overall connectivity (i.e., the summed total of weighted connections) was significantly weaker for the positive treatment response group at baseline (compared with unchanged and deteriorated groups), however, this group saw the largest increase in connectivity over the course of treatment. With regard to the overall importance of specific symptoms within the networks, fatigue was highest in strength for the unchanged and deteriorated groups, whereas low mood was highest in strength for the improved group.
INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrates that adolescents who respond early to treatment for depression are characterised by symptom networks that are less densely connected initially, yet increase in connectivity over the course of treatment. This may be indicative of 'positive spirals' whereby improvement in one symptom triggers improvements in other symptoms, thereby increasing symptom-symptom associations even as severity decreases.
FUNDING BACKGROUND
The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust grant 204366/Z/16/Z. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31193604
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.02.009
pii: S2589-5370(19)30035-5
pmc: PMC6537518
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

29-36

Références

Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017 Feb;52(2):143-145
pubmed: 28210750
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Feb;59(1):12-9
pubmed: 2002127
JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Dec;72(12):1219-26
pubmed: 26561400
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006 Aug;40(8):616-22
pubmed: 16866756
PLoS Med. 2013 Nov;10(11):e1001547
pubmed: 24223526
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Feb;50(1):195-212
pubmed: 28342071
Psychol Med. 2016 Dec;46(16):3359-3369
pubmed: 27623748
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2002 Apr;70(2):299-310
pubmed: 11952188
Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:119-38
pubmed: 23514317
Behav Res Ther. 2005 Mar;43(3):309-22
pubmed: 15680928
Psychother Res. 2012;22(1):1-11
pubmed: 21943215
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;62(6):593-602
pubmed: 15939837
J Abnorm Psychol. 2017 Oct;126(7):989-999
pubmed: 29106282
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;53(6):617-627
pubmed: 29627898
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;49(10):980-9
pubmed: 20855043
JAMA Psychiatry. 2018 Jan 1;75(1):98-100
pubmed: 29188277
BMC Med. 2015 Apr 06;13:72
pubmed: 25879936
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;52(1):1-10
pubmed: 27921134
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 23;11(11):e0155205
pubmed: 27880771
J Affect Disord. 2016 Jan 1;189:314-20
pubmed: 26458184
Psychol Methods. 2022 Apr 11;:
pubmed: 35404628
J Abnorm Psychol. 2017 Oct;126(7):1011-1016
pubmed: 29106284
Psychol Assess. 2016 Nov;28(11):1354-1367
pubmed: 26821198
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9:91-121
pubmed: 23537483
J Pers Oriented Res. 2017 Nov 01;3(1):1-10
pubmed: 33569120
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59559
pubmed: 23555706

Auteurs

Eoin McElroy (E)

Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Elisa Napoleone (E)

Evidence Based Practice Unit, University College London, London, UK.
The Anna Freud Centre, London, UK.

Miranda Wolpert (M)

Evidence Based Practice Unit, University College London, London, UK.
The Anna Freud Centre, London, UK.

Praveetha Patalay (P)

Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Classifications MeSH