Understanding Depression Monitoring in Clinical Trials

Objective of the Study

This study examined how two methods of measuring depression—Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) and Weekly Questionnaires (WQA)—compare in clinical trials. We wanted to see how well each method could track changes in depressive symptoms and negative thinking, and how accurately they predict overall patient functioning.

Study Overview

We involved 71 patients dealing with depression. They were randomly placed into one of three different psychological treatments. The EMA asked patients four simple questions three times a day for seven weeks. In contrast, patients completed detailed questionnaires once a week.

Key Findings

The EMA was better at detecting quick changes from the treatments, while the WQA provided stronger predictions about how patients were functioning overall. Interestingly, scores from the WQA dropped more dramatically over time compared to EMA scores.

Conclusions

While all three assessment methods—clinical interviews, questionnaires, and EMA—are related, they measure changes in depression differently. EMA is more responsive to treatment effects, but all methods can have biases. To improve the accuracy of clinical trial assessments, we recommend combining EMA with objective behavioral measures.