TY - JOUR
T1 - Where are the breaks in translation from theory to clinical practice (and back) in addressing depression? An empirical graph-theoretic approach
AU - Siegle, Greg J.
AU - Cramer, Angélique O.J.
AU - Van Eck, Nees Jan
AU - Spinhoven, Philip
AU - Hollon, Steven D.
AU - Ormel, Johan
AU - Strege, Marlene
AU - Bockting, Claudi L.H.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018.
PY - 2019/12/1
Y1 - 2019/12/1
N2 - Background Research in depression has progressed rapidly over the past four decades. Yet depression rates are not subsiding and treatment success is not improving. We examine the extent to which the gap between science and practice is associated with the level of integration in how depression is considered in research and stakeholder-relevant documents.Methods We used a network-science perspective to analyze similar uses of depression relevant terms in the Google News corpus (approximately 1 billion words) and the Web of Science database (120 000 documents).Results These analyses yielded consistent pictures of insular modules associated with: (1) patient/providers, (2) academics, and (3) industry. Within academia insular modules associated with psychology, general medical, and psychiatry/neuroscience/biology were also detected.Conclusions These analyses suggest that the domain of depression is fragmented, and that advancements of relevance to one stakeholder group (academics, industry, or patients) may not translate to the others. We consider potential causes and associated responses to this fragmentation that could help to unify and advance translation from research on depression to the clinic, largely involving harmonizing employed language, bridging conceptual domains, and increasing communication across stakeholder groups.
AB - Background Research in depression has progressed rapidly over the past four decades. Yet depression rates are not subsiding and treatment success is not improving. We examine the extent to which the gap between science and practice is associated with the level of integration in how depression is considered in research and stakeholder-relevant documents.Methods We used a network-science perspective to analyze similar uses of depression relevant terms in the Google News corpus (approximately 1 billion words) and the Web of Science database (120 000 documents).Results These analyses yielded consistent pictures of insular modules associated with: (1) patient/providers, (2) academics, and (3) industry. Within academia insular modules associated with psychology, general medical, and psychiatry/neuroscience/biology were also detected.Conclusions These analyses suggest that the domain of depression is fragmented, and that advancements of relevance to one stakeholder group (academics, industry, or patients) may not translate to the others. We consider potential causes and associated responses to this fragmentation that could help to unify and advance translation from research on depression to the clinic, largely involving harmonizing employed language, bridging conceptual domains, and increasing communication across stakeholder groups.
KW - Depression
KW - graph theory
KW - translation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075522306&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S003329171800363X
DO - 10.1017/S003329171800363X
M3 - Article
C2 - 30560751
SN - 0033-2917
VL - 49
SP - 2681
EP - 2691
JO - Psychological Medicine
JF - Psychological Medicine
IS - 16
ER -