It has been suggested that patients' perception of treatment assignment might serve to bias results of double blind randomized controlled trials (RCT). Most previous evidence on the effects of patients' perceptions and the mechanisms influencing these perceptions relies on cross-sectional associations. This re-analysis of a double blind, placebo controlled RCT of pharmacological treatment of major depression set out to gather longitudinal evidence on the mechanism and effects of patients' perceived treatment assignment in the pharmacological treatment of major depression.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSection 7.3 of the , more commonly known as the Goldwater rule, admonishes psychiatrists to avoid offering professional opinions about public figures in the absence of an in-person evaluation. To our knowledge, no peer-reviewed articles have been published considering resident perspectives on the Goldwater rule.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjective: Recent meta-analyses of antidepressant clinical trials have suggested that up to 82 % of response can be attributed to non-medication-related factors. The present study examines psychiatrists' attitudes regarding non-pharmacologic factors within the context of antidepressant pharmacotherapy.
Methods: A web-based, 20-question cross-sectional survey was distributed to 101 staff psychiatrists and 48 post-graduate trainees in psychiatry at an academic hospital in Boston, MA.
Background: We have previously shown an association between patient belief and treatment response in the Hypericum Depression Trial Study Group's 2002 study. We re-examined these data to determine whether clinical improvement was associated with physician belief about assigned therapy.
Methods: Three hundred and forty adults with major depression and baseline scores ≥20 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HDRS-17) were randomized to Hypericum 900-1500mg/day, sertraline 50-100mg/day, or placebo for 8 weeks.