Using point allocation to identify outcomes that matter: results from two cognitive behavioural therapy trials for depression

BACKGROUND: Depression trials typically use symptom-based outcomes to determine treatment efficacy. Qualitative work with service users and clinicians indicates that other outcomes may be equally or more important. Quantitative investigations are needed to assess the relative importance of outcomes to key stakeholders. AIMS: To examine how stakeholders (service users with minimal symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition (BDI-II) score ≤18), those who were currently symptomatic (BDI-II score ≥19) and clinicians working with people with depression) prioritise outcome domains drawn from two completed trials of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for depression. This was from a new sample of stakeholders in order to explore similarities, differences and predictors of domain importance. METHOD: An online survey using a novel point-allocation method examined stakeholder priorities for outcome domains from two completed UK trials of CBT for depression. Stakeholder free-text responses explaining point allocations were thematically analysed. Multivariate analysis of covariance explored differences in domain importance across groups, and exploratory multivariate general linear models investigated predictive variables. RESULTS: In total, 229 participants completed the survey (57 with minimal symptoms, 108 who were currently symptomatic and 64 clinicians). Median point allocations suggest that all three participant groups assigned similar importance to depression symptoms, quality of life, anxiety symptoms and impact on activities. Sociodemographic factors significantly predicted domain importance within the currently symptomatic group, and age was a predictor both across and within this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders valued several outcome domains with similar importance. While depression symptoms are not unimportant to stakeholders, they are balanced with other outcomes, such as quality of life, that are rarely measured in depression trials. These findings demonstrate the need to incorporate stakeholder-important outcomes into trial design, with stakeholder-weighted composite outcomes offering a potential method to capture this broader judgement of benefit.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2026-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2026.10765
Primary Topic
Treatment of Major Depression
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Using point allocation to identify outcomes that matter: results from two cognitive behavioural therapy trials for depression

Kyriaki Michaelidou, Rachel Hill, Til Wykes, Huajie Jin et al.
The British Journal of Psychiatry
Treatment of Major Depression
article

Using point allocation to identify outcomes that matter: results from two cognitive behavioural therapy trials for depression

Kyriaki Michaelidou, Rachel Hill, Til Wykes, Huajie Jin, Niamh Molloy, Max Moser, Ailbhe Madigan, Katherine Barrett, Hannah Fabian, Anna Mitchell
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Depression trials typically use symptom-based outcomes to determine treatment efficacy. Qualitative work with service users and clinicians indicates that other outcomes may be equally or more important. Quantitative investigations are needed to assess the relative importance of outcomes to key stakeholders. AIMS: To examine how stakeholders (service users with minimal symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition (BDI-II) score ≤18), those who were currently symptomatic (BDI-II score ≥19) and clinicians working with people with depression) prioritise outcome domains drawn from two completed trials of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for depression. This was from a new sample of stakeholders in order to explore similarities, differences and predictors of domain importance. METHOD: An online survey using a novel point-allocation method examined stakeholder priorities for outcome domains from two completed UK trials of CBT for depression. Stakeholder free-text responses explaining point allocations were thematically analysed. Multivariate analysis of covariance explored differences in domain importance across groups, and exploratory multivariate general linear models investigated predictive variables. RESULTS: In total, 229 participants completed the survey (57 with minimal symptoms, 108 who were currently symptomatic and 64 clinicians). Median point allocations suggest that all three participant groups assigned similar importance to depression symptoms, quality of life, anxiety symptoms and impact on activities. Sociodemographic factors significantly predicted domain importance within the currently symptomatic group, and age was a predictor both across and within this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders valued several outcome domains with similar importance. While depression symptoms are not unimportant to stakeholders, they are balanced with other outcomes, such as quality of life, that are rarely measured in depression trials. These findings demonstrate the need to incorporate stakeholder-important outcomes into trial design, with stakeholder-weighted composite outcomes offering a potential method to capture this broader judgement of benefit.

The British Journal of Psychiatry
King's College London (GB), University of Westminster (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Treatment of Major Depression
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.