Real-World Disparities Between Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify potential discordance between physician and patient rated measures of depression used by primary care physicians and psychiatrists. This study collected data from primary care physicians and psychiatrists in the United States between October and December 2009. A real-world, cross-sectional study was conducted using the Neuroses Disease-Specific Programme (Adelphi Real World, Macclesfield, United Kingdom). Treatment practice data were collected by 180 physicians (100 primary care and 80 psychiatrists) who were asked to provide information for the next 15 outpatients presenting prospectively with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression (n = 2,704 patients). The primary outcome measures were the Clinical Global Impressions-and Patient Global Impressions-Improvement scales, completed by both physicians and their matched patients, respectively. Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) was calculated to assess the level of agreement between the Clinical Global Impressions-and Patient Global Impressions-Improvement scale responses. Physician- and patient-rated overall improvement in illness was 82% and 89%, respectively. Results of the kappa analysis demonstrated fair agreement between patients and physicians regarding overall improvement in illness (44% agreement; κ= 0.23). Physician ratings of patient improvement progressively decreased with increased severity of illness. These real-world data suggest that the degree of reduction in symptoms of anxiety and/or depression may be estimated differently by physicians when compared with their patients. Understanding the potential for disparities between physician- and patient-rated measures in reviewing patient care, particularly in patients with more severe depressive symptoms, can help ensure that treatment plans are aligned with patient needs.