Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Life & Times

Books: Evidence-biased Antidepressant Prescription: Overmedicalisation, Flawed Research, and Conflicts of Interest

A Deep Dive into the Evidence

Marion Brown
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (716): 126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp22X718721
Marion Brown
Marion is a retired psychotherapist and researcher/campaigner/petitioner on behalf of the patient self-help peer group, Recovery and Renewal. Her late husband was a GP. Email: @recover2renew
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mmarionbrown@googlemail.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
Michael P Hengartner Palgrave Macmillan, 2021, HB, 361pp, £109.99, 978-3030825867
Figure

Hengartner begins ‘Over my academic career, I went into different stages of belief and disbelief.’ In his studies of clinical psychology and psychopathology in Switzerland in the early 2000s Hengartner learned about Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) psychiatric diagnoses as if these were clear-cut natural disease entities, and was taught that this is how humans think, behave, and feel because it has been confirmed in this or that study. He never considered ‘that many, perhaps most of these studies, could be simply wrong.’

His discomfort began in 2010 when, as a PhD student, doing what he had been taught at university and by his supervisors somehow ‘didn’t feel right.’ After completing his PhD in 2014 he took up a tenured position at the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, where metascience, research methodology, statistics, and the philosophy of science became his primary research interests.

In this post Hengartner searched the scientific literature: ‘This is when I opened Pandora’s box, for when you search the literature on publication bias in psychiatry, among the first research papers you’ll find are the seminal studies from the 2000s that demonstrated how selectively the results of antidepressant trials were published. Next, you’ll discover how pervasively the pharmaceutical industry has corrupted academic medicine and that drug manufacturers systematically bias the scientific evidence so that their products appear more effective and safer than they really are. You will probably also learn about the various flaws in the contemporary definition of depression and other mental disorders and how mental disorders were misleadingly marketed by the pharmaceutical industry to increase the sales of psychiatric drugs.’

In 2017 Hengartner published his first study on antidepressants for depression, a critical review of methodological limitations in clinical trials, selective reporting of research findings, and corporate bias in the evidence base. The response to this publication completely changed his research career and position. He discovered that the debate was ‘highly polarised and hateful, where scientific arguments could quickly turn into scathing and discrediting accusations.’ But there was also interest and he was encouraged to write a book.

Hengartner learned that many practicing psychiatrists and GPs were simply not aware of these pervasive issues, ‘Some also admitted honestly to me, in confidence, that they were not allowed to raise these issues in the clinic, fearing disapproval and rejection from their colleagues and supervisors.’ This extended to researchers, service users, advocacy groups, and policymakers who were not aware of the multiple flaws in the way we define, diagnose, and treat depression. ‘That’s why I wrote this book on antidepressant prescribing in depression.’

The book contains an astonishing revelation of deeply researched and detailed evidence (all meticulously referenced) of these gaping flaws. It is a fascinating and shocking read covering:

  • Clinical practice — where many psychiatrists and GPs confidently affirm that antidepressants are effective based on their clinical observation and a common reply to scientific debates about the questionable effectiveness of antidepressants is ‘In my clinical experience, antidepressants clearly work, I’ve witnessed it hundreds of times.’

  • How ‘diagnosis of depression’ has been transformed towards increased medicalisation and pharmaceuticalisation — with screening instruments such as PHQ-9 and GAD-7 adopted for use in primary care (and self-diagnosis tools) as simple and cost-efficient alternatives to time-consuming diagnostic interviews.

  • How antidepressant research is flawed: the efficacy and safety of antidepressants systematically misrepresented in the scientific literature due to methodological biases, selective reporting, and spin — revealing how the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatric associations, and eminent academics play a major role in pervasive distortion of the scientific evidence.

  • Widespread conflicts of interest where the pharmaceutical industry can, and does, influence physicians’ prescribing behaviour by supporting academic departments, senior researchers, medical organisations, and both the clinical practice guidelines and diagnostic manuals they produce — as well as through continuing medical education and direct to prescriber incentives.

We are left without any doubt that pharmaceutical marketing inevitably leads to overprescribing and can have a detrimental impact on public health and patient safety. Hengartner discovered that asking questions about the effectiveness of antidepressants was one of those ‘uncomfortable questions’, and that critically writing about adverse effects was ‘not welcome’ in psychiatry and may prompt fierce (even hateful) reactions. He strongly urges that defensiveness, denial, and dismissal are not the way forward to improve public health and patient care.

The evidence that Hengartner provides is extensive and impeccably presented. He concludes, ‘With this book I hope to have made a small contribution to an evidence-based, judicious, and cautious prescribing of antidepressants in depression without fuelling blanket condemnation of this popular drug class.’

Footnotes

  • This review was first posted on BJGP Life on 14 January 2022; https://bjgplife.com/antidepressant

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2022
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 72 (716)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 72, Issue 716
March 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Books: Evidence-biased Antidepressant Prescription: Overmedicalisation, Flawed Research, and Conflicts of Interest
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Books: Evidence-biased Antidepressant Prescription: Overmedicalisation, Flawed Research, and Conflicts of Interest
Marion Brown
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (716): 126. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X718721

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Books: Evidence-biased Antidepressant Prescription: Overmedicalisation, Flawed Research, and Conflicts of Interest
Marion Brown
British Journal of General Practice 2022; 72 (716): 126. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp22X718721
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • What does the future hold for the relationship between a patient and their GP in the UK?
  • Bandaging our own wounds: how do we support each other when a colleague dies by suicide?
  • Research Paper of the Year 2021: relevant to training and beyond
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242