Skip to main content
Log in

Social Functioning

Should it Become an Endpoint in Trials of Antidepressants?

  • Review Article
  • Published:
CNS Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

DSM-IV has recommended use of the Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS) as a clinician-rated global assessment scale for measuring social functioning; this scale is analogous to the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale traditionally used as a secondary outcome measure in patients with depressive symptoms. However, we believe that health-related quality of life is the most appropriate indicator of social functioning when considering this dimension as an endpoint in clinical trials of antidepressants. As health-related quality of life is a purely subjective measure, patient-rated questionnaires have been found to be most important in this context. In this respect, the Sheehan Disability Scale has been recommended as the most relevant global self-reported assessment of social functioning in trials of antidepressants.

A review of questionnaires found that the three most frequently used scales selectively directed at obtaining information about social functioning in trials of antidepressants are the Social Adjustment Scale — Self Report (SAS-SR), the Social Adaptation Self-Evaluation Scale (SASS) and the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). However, the number of placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants that have used these scales is still too limited to allow comparisons in terms of responsiveness.

Health-related quality of life includes dimensions other than social functioning, e.g. physical health and mental health (including both cognitive and affective problems). The SF-36 includes subscales relating to physical and mental health, which, like the social functioning subscales, are measured in terms of degrees of well being. Another quality-of-life questionnaire, the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q), covers social, mental and physical problems, in this case measured in terms of degrees of satisfaction. Recently, the Q-LES-Q has been reduced from a comprehensive scale including 60–92 items to a brief version including 15 items. An additional item measures overall life satisfaction. As most of the items in the brief Q-LES-Q include social functioning, the scale can be considered as an alternative to SF-36 or the Sheehan Disability Scale when the focus is on satisfaction with treatment. However, there are insufficient numbers of trials of antidepressants using these questionnaires to allow comparisons.

The examples of trials of antidepressants with the SF-36 subscales discussed in this review have mostly involved SSRIs. These trials have demonstrated that although antidepressants improve social functioning compared with placebo over a 6-week treatment period, the endpoint scores are still significantly below the national norms at this point. Only after 12 weeks of therapy are the endpoint scores of the social functioning scales within the limits of the national norms. In relapse prevention trials or in maintenance trials to prevent recurrence of depression, comparisons of social functioning scores with national norms can be important supplementary indicators of the need for treatment.

In conclusion, social functioning as part of the health-related concept of the patient-reported quality-of-life measure should constitute an endpoint in trials of antidepressants to help clarify the goals of treatment in patients with major depression. In medium- and long-term trials, SF-36 subscales should be used as a supplement to symptom-orientated scales. In trials of shorter (6–8 weeks) duration, use of other scales such as the SAS-SR, the Q-LES-Q or the Sheehan Disability Scale should be considered. These scales should be considered as supplementary to each other rather than alternatives; it may be necessary to use more than one of these scales in a trial.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Table III
Table IV
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bech P. Pharmacological treatment of depressive disorders: a review. In: Maj M, Sartorius N, editors. Depressive disorders (WPA series evidence and experience in psychiatry). 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2002: 89–128

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kuhn R. Über die Behandlung depressiver Zustände mit einem Iminodibenzylderivat (G22355). Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1957; 87: 1135–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Sullivan RL, Fava M, Augustin C, et al. Sensitivity of the six-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1997; 95: 379–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bagby RM, Ryder AG, Schuller DR, et al. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Has the gold standard become a lead weight? Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 2163–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bech P, Gram LF, Dein E, et al. Quantitative rating of depressive states. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1975; 51: 161–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bech P, Allerup P, Gram LF, et al. The Hamilton Depression Scale: evaluation of objectivity using logistic models. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1981; 63: 290–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Angst J. Depression and anxiety: a review of studies in the community and in primary health care. In: Sartorius N, Goldberg D, de Girolamo G, et al., editors. Psychological disorders in general medical settings. Toronto: Hogrefe and Huber, 1990: 60–8

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hordern A. Tranquility denial: stress and its impact today. Melbourne: Rigby, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bech P. The Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale (MES) in clinical trials of therapies in depressive disorders: a 20-year review of its use as outcome measure. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002; 106: 252–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bech P, Allerup P, Reisby N, et al. Assessment of symptom change from improvement curves on the Hamilton Depression scale in trials with antidepressants. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1984; 84: 276–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Storosum JG, van Zwieten BJ, van den Brink W, et al. Suicide risk in placebo-controlled studies of major depression. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 1271–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Khan A, Khan SR, Leventhal RM, et al. Symptom reduction and suicide in patients treated with placebo in antidepressant clinical trials: a replication analysis of the Food and Drug Administration database. Int J Neuropsychiatry 2001; 4: 113–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goldman HH, Skodol AE, Lave TR. Revising axis V for DSM-IV: a review of measures of social functioning. Am J Psychiatry 1992; 149: 1148–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Guy W. Early Clinical Drug Evaluation (ECDEU) assessment manual for psychopharmacology. Publication No. 76-338. Rockville (MD): National Institute of Mental Health, 1976

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sheehan DV. The anxiety disease. New York: Scribners, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sheehan DV. The Sheehan disability scale. In: Rush AJ, Pincus HA, First MB, et al., editors. Handbook of psychiatric measures. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000: 113–5

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hirschfeld RM, Montgomery SA, Keller MB, et al. Social functioning in depression: a review. J Clin Psychiatry 2000; 61: 268–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bech P. Quality of life in the psychiatric patient. London: Mosby-Wolfe, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  20. Weissman MM. Social functioning and the treatment of depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2000; 61 Suppl. 1: 33–8

    Google Scholar 

  21. Weissman MM, Olfson M, Gameroff MJ, et al. A comparison of three scales for assessing social functioning in primary care. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 460–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Weissman MM, Bothwell S. Assessment of social adjustment by patient self-report. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1976; 33: 1111–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bosc M. Assessment of social functioning in depression. Compr Psychiatry 2000; 41: 63–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ware JE, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lecrubier Y, Bourin M, Moon CA, et al. Efficacy of venlafaxine in depressive illness in general practice. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1997; 95: 485–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Coulehan JL, Schulberg HC, Block MR, et al. Treating depressed primary care patients improves their physical, mental, and social functioning. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1113–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Souetre E, Martin P, Lozet H, et al. Quality of life in depressed patients: comparison of fluoxetine and major tricyclic antidepressants. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1996; 11: 45–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gleason OC, Yates WR, Isbell MD, et al. An open-label trial of citalopram for major depression in patients with hepatitis C. J Clin Psychiatry 2002; 63: 194–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Simon GE, VonKorff M, Heiligenstein JH, et al. Initial antidepressant choice in primary care: effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs tricyclic antidepressants. JAMA 1996; 275: 1897–902

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Russell JM, Koran LM, Rush J, et al. Effect of concurrent anxiety on response to sertraline and imipramine in patients with chronic depression. Depress Anxiety 2001; 13: 18–27

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Venditti LN, Arcelus A, Birnbaum H, et al. The impact of antidepressant use on social functioning: reboxetine versus fluoxetine. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2000; 15: 279–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bech P, Lunde M, Undén M. Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale (SASS): psychometric analysis as outcome measure in the treatment of patients with major depression in the remission phase. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 2002; 6: 141–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dubini A, Bosc M, Polin V. Do noradrenaline and serotonin differentially affect social motivation and behaviour? Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1997 Apr; 7Suppl. 1: S49–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Massana J, Moller HJ, Burrows GD, et al. Reboxetine: a double-blind comparison with fluoxetine in major depressive disorder. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1999 Mar; 14: 73–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Tse WS, Bond AJ. Difference in serotonergic and noradrenergic regulation of human social behaviours. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2002; 159: 216–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Gandek B, Ware JE. Translating functional health and well-being: international quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project studies of the SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51 (11, Special Issue)

  37. van der Heijden PG, van Buuren S, Fekkes M, et al. Unidimensionality and reliability under Mokken scaling of the Dutch language version of the SF-36. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 189–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Speer DC. Mental health outcome evaluation. San Diego (CA): Academic Press, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  39. Heiligenstein JH, Ware Jr JE, Beusterien KM, et al. Acute effects of fluoxetine versus placebo on functional health and well-being in late-life depression. Int Psychogeriatr 1995; 7 Suppl.: 125–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE. Comparison of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey. Med Care 1994; 32: 551–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1995; 33(4 Suppl.): AS264–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kroenke K, West SL, Swindle R, et al. Similar effectiveness of paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline in primary care: a randomized trial. JAMA 2001; 286: 2947–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Beusterien KM, Steinwald B, Ware JE. Usefulness of the SF-36 Health Survey in measuring health outcomes in the depressed elderly. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1996; 9: 13–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hirschfeld RM, Dunner DL, Keitner G, et al. Does psychosocial functioning improve independent of depressive symptoms? A comparison of nefazodone, psychotherapy, and their combination. Biol Psychiatry 2002; 51: 123–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kocsis JH, Schatzberg A, Rush AJ, et al. Psychosocial outcomes following long-term, double-blind treatment of chronic depression with sertraline vs placebo. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002; 59: 723–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Rosenberg R. Outcome measures of antidepressive therapy. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 2000; 402: 41–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Hopper CL, Bakish D. An examination of the sensitivity of the six-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression in a sample of patients suffering from major depressive disorder. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2000; 25: 178–184

    Google Scholar 

  48. Demyttenaere K, de Fruyt J. Getting what you ask for: on the selectivity of depression rating scales. Psychother Psychosom 2003; 72: 61–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bech P, Cialdella P, Haugh M, et al. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of fluoxetine versus placebo and tricyclic antidepressants in the short-term treatment of major depression. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 176: 421–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Bech P. Meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials with mirtazapine using the core items of the Hamilton Depression Scale as evidence of a pure antidepressive effect in the short-term treatment of major depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2001; 4: 337–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Bech P, Tanghoj P, Andersen HF, et al. Citalopram dose-response revisited using an alternative psychometric approach to evaluate clinical effects of four fixed citalopram doses compared to placebo in patients with major depression. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2002; 163: 20–5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M. An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1961; 4: 561–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Zung WWK. A self-rating depression scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1965; 12: 63–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Naughton MJ, Wiklund I. A critical review of dimension-specific measures of health-related quality of life in cross-cultural research. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 397–432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Bech P. Clinical effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. In: Dahl SG, Gram LF, editors. Clinical pharmacology in psychiatry. Berlin: Springer, 1989: 81-93

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mezzich JE, Berganza CE, von Cranach M, et al. Essentials of the World Psychiatric Association’s International Guidelines for Diagnostic Assessment (IGDA). Br J Psychiatry 2003; 182Suppl. 145: 37–63

    Google Scholar 

  57. Stassen HH, Angst J, Delini-Stula A. Delayed onset of action of antidepressant drugs? Survey of results of Zurich meta-analysis. Pharmacopsychiatry 1996; 29: 87–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Thunedborg K, Black C, Bech P. Beyond the Hamilton depression scores in long-term treatment of manic-melancholic patients: prediction of recurrence of depression by quality of life measurements. Psychother Psychosom 1995; 64: 131–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Lydiard RB, Stahl SM, Hertzman M, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing the effects of sertraline versus amitriptyline in the treatment of major depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1997; 58: 484–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Miller IW, Keitner GI, Schatzberg AF, et al. Psychosocial functioning before and after treatment with sertraline or imipramine. J Clin Psychiatry 1998; 59: 608–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Endicott J, Nee J, Harrison W, et al. Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire: a new measure. Psychopharmacol Bull 1993; 29: 321–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Endicott J. Quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). In: Rush AJ, Pincus HA, First MB, et al., editors. Handbook of psychiatric measures. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000: 143–4

    Google Scholar 

  63. Burke WJ, Gergel I, Bose A. Fixed-dose trial of the single isomer SSRI escitalopram in depressed outpatients. J Clin Psychiatry 2002; 63: 331–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Bech P, Tanghøj P, Cialdella P, et al. Escitalopram dose-response revisited: an alternative psychometric approach to evaluate clinical effects of escitalopram compared to citalopram and placebo in patients with major depression. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2004; 7(3): 283–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Finkel SI, Richter EM, Clary CM. Comparative efficacy and safety of sertraline versus nortriptyline in major depression in patients 70 and older. Int Psychogeriatr 1999; 11: 85–99

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Guidelines on psychotropic drugs for the EC: antidepressant medicinal products. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1994; 4: 61–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author confirms that the work on this article has not been financially supported by any organisation or company.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Per Bech.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bech, P. Social Functioning. CNS Drugs 19, 313–324 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00023210-200519040-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00023210-200519040-00004

Keywords

Navigation