Background: Patients experience an increasing treatment burden related to everything they do to take care of their health: visits to the doctor, medical tests, treatment management and lifestyle changes. This treatment burden could affect treatment adherence, quality of life and outcomes. We aimed to develop and validate an instrument for measuring treatment burden for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Methods: Items were derived from a literature review and qualitative semistructured interviews with patients. The instrument was then validated in a sample of patients with chronic conditions recruited in hospitals and general practitioner clinics in France. Factor analysis was used to examine the questionnaire structure. Construct validity was studied by the relationships between the instrument's global score, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) scores and the complexity of treatment as assessed by patients and physicians. Agreement between patients and physicians was appraised. Reliability was determined by a test-retest method. Results: A sample of 502 patients completed the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ), which consisted of 7 items (2 of which had 4 subitems) defined after 22 interviews with patients. The questionnaire showed a unidimensional structure. The Cronbach's α was 0.89. The instrument's global score was negatively correlated with TSQM scores (r_s = -0.41 to -0.53) and positively correlated with the complexity of treatment (r_s = 0.16 to 0.40). Agreement between patients and physicians (n = 396) was weak (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.47)). Reliability of the retest (n = 211 patients) was 0.76 (0.67 to 0.83). Conclusions: This study provides the first valid and reliable instrument assessing the treatment burden for patients across any disease or treatment context. This instrument could help in the development of treatment strategies that are both efficient and acceptable for patients.

Management strategies for patients with chronic conditions are becoming increasingly complex, which may result in a burden of treatment for patients. To develop a Minimally Disruptive Medicine designed to reduce the burden of treatment, clinicians need to understand which healthcare tasks and aggravating factors may be responsible for this burden. The objective of the present study was to describe and classify the components of the burden of treatment for patients with chronic conditions from the patient’s perspective. We performed a multi-country qualitative study using an online survey and a purposive sampling strategy to select English-, French-, and Spanish-speaking participants with different chronic conditions. Participants were recruited by physicians, patients’ associations, advertisement on social media, and ‘snowballing’. The answers were analyzed by i) manual content analysis with a grounded theory approach, coded by two researchers, and ii) automatic textual analysis by Reinert’s method. Between 2013 and 2014, 1,053 participants from 34 different countries completed the online survey using 408,625 words. Results from both analyses were synthesized in a taxonomy of the burden of treatment, which described i) the tasks imposed on patients by their diseases and by their healthcare system (e.g., medication management, lifestyle changes, follow-up, etc.); ii) the structural (e.g., access to healthcare resources, coordination between care providers), personal, situational, and financial factors that aggravated the burden of treatment; and iii) patient-reported consequences of the burden (e.g., poor adherence to treatments, financial burden, impact on professional, family, and social life, etc.). Our findings may not be applicable to patients with chronic conditions who differ from those who responded to our survey. Our taxonomy of the burden of treatment, provided by patients with chronic conditions from different countries and settings, supports the development of tools to ascertain the burden of treatment and highlights potential targets for interventions to minimize it.

Background: The Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI) is frequently used in medical care and clinical research because of its face validity and practicability. This study proposes to improve the reliability of the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale in depressive disorders by the use of a semi-standardized interview, a new response format, and a Delphi procedure. Methods: Thirty patients hospitalised for a major depressive episode were filmed at T1 (first week in hospital) and at T2 (2 weeks later) during a 5' specific interview. The Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale and the Symptom Check List were also rated. Eleven psychiatrists rated these videos using either the usual CGI response format or an improved response format, with or without a Delphi procedure. Results: The new response format slightly improved (but not significantly) the interrater agreement, the Delphi procedure did not. The best results were obtained when ratings by 4 independent raters were averaged. In this situation, intraclass correlation coefficients were about 0.9. Conclusion: The Clinical Global Impression is a useful approach in psychiatry since it apprehends patients in their entirety. This study shows that it is possible to quantify such impressions with a high level of interrater agreement.

Psychiatric surveys conducted in prison populations find high prevalence rates, but diagnoses may be difficult in this particular context. None of these surveys have been conducted in France. 800 incarcerated male were sampled at random. Each prisoner was interviewed by a group of 2 clinicians, at least one of them being a senior psychiatrist. One of the clinicians used a structured clinical interview which generated DSM IV diagnosis (MINI plus); the second completed the procedure with an open clinical interview. Prevalence rates for a diagnosis given independently by both clinicians and for a consensual diagnosis were respectively: 3.8% (6.2%) for schizophrenia, 17.9% (24%) for major depressive disorder, 12.0% (17.7%) for generalized anxiety and 10.8% (14.6%) for drug dependence. Psychiatric diagnosis can be difficult to interpret in prison, especially using traditional standardized interviews. The approach proposed here, with good reliability and closer to a day-to-day clinical practice, yields high prevalence rates.

The global burden of disease (GBD) study provides information about fatal and non-fatal health outcomes around the world. The objective of this work is to describe the burden of mental disorders among children aged 5–14 years in each of the six regions of the World Health Organisation. Data come from the GBD 2015 study. Outcomes: disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) are the main indicator of GBD studies and are built from years of life lost (YLLs) and years of life lived with disability (YLDs). Mental disorders are among the leading causes of YLDs and of DALYs in Europe and the Americas. Because of the importance of infectious diseases, mental disorders appear marginal in Africa for YLLs although they play an important role in YLDs there. Because the epidemiological transition that has taken place in Europe and the Americas (i.e., a switch from acute and infectious conditions to chronic and mental health issues) is likely to happen sooner or later across the entire planet, mental health problems in youth are likely to become one of the main public health challenges of the twenty-first century. These results should improve health care if policy-makers use them to develop health policies to meet the real needs of populations (especially children) today.

To examine the psychometric properties of the Adolescent Depression Rating Scale (ADRS), a new measure was specifically designed to evaluate adolescent depression. The 11-item clinician-report and 44-item self-report versions of the ADRS were developed from a qualitative phase involving interviews of experts and adolescents. These two instruments were then administered to 402 French speaking adolescents with and without depressive disorders. Item distribution, internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity and factorial structure were assessed. After reduction procedures, a 10-item clinician version and a 10-item self-report version were obtained. The ADRS demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha Cronbach coefficient >.70). It also discriminated better between adolescents with and without depression than the Hamilton Depressive Rating Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-13). The ADRS is a useful, short, clinician-report and self-report scale to evaluate adolescent depression. Further studies to replicate our findings and evaluate ADRS sensitivity to effects of treatment and psychometric properties in populations of adolescents with several psychiatric disorders are warranted.