Excessive negative self-referential processing plays an important role in the development and maintenance of major depressive disorder (MDD). Current measures of self-reflection are limited to self-report questionnaires and invoking imagined states, which may not be suitable for all populations.

The current study aimed to pilot a new measure of self-reflection, the Fake IQ Test (FIQT).

Participants with MDD and unaffected controls completed a behavioural (experiment 1, n = 50) and functional magnetic resonance imaging version (experiment 2, n = 35) of the FIQT.

Behaviourally, those with MDD showed elevated negative self-comparison with others, higher self-dissatisfaction and lower perceived success on the task, compared with controls; however, FIQT scores were not related to existing self-report measures of self-reflection. In the functional magnetic resonance imaging version, greater activation in self-reflection versus control conditions was found bilaterally in the inferior frontal cortex, insula, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, motor cortex and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex. No differences in neural activation were found between participants with MDD and controls, nor were there any associations between neural activity, FIQT scores or self-report measures of self-reflection.

Our results suggest the FIQT is sensitive to affective psychopathology, but a lack of association with other measures of self-reflection may indicate that the task is measuring a different construct. Alternatively, the FIQT may measure aspects of self-reflection inaccessible to current questionnaires. Future work should explore relationships with alternative measures of self-reflection likely to be involved in perception of task performance, such as perfectionism.

Individuals with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) experience a high burden of illness. Current guidelines recommend a stepped care approach for treating depression, but the extent to which best-practice care pathways are adhered to is unclear.

To explore the extent and nature of ‘treatment gaps’ (non-adherence to stepped care pathways) experienced by a sample of patients with established TRD (non-response to two or more adequate treatments in the current depressive episode) across three cities in the UK.

Five treatment gaps were considered and compared with guidelines, in a cross-sectional retrospective analysis: delay to receiving treatment, lack of access to psychological therapies, delays to medication changes, delays to adjunctive (pharmacological augmentation) treatment and lack of access to secondary care. We additionally explored participant characteristics associated with the extent of treatment gaps experienced.

Of 178 patients with TRD, 47% had been in the current depressive episode for >1 year before initiating antidepressants; 53% had received adequate psychological therapy. A total of 47 and 51% had remained on an unsuccessful first and second antidepressant trial respectively for >16 weeks, and 24 and 27% for >1 year before medication switch, respectively. Further, 54% had tried three or more antidepressant medications within their episode, and only 11% had received adjunctive treatment.

There appears to be a considerable difference between treatment guidelines for depression and the reality of care received by people with TRD. Future research examining representative samples of patients could determine recommendations for optimising care pathways, and ultimately outcomes, for individuals with this illness.

Influential theories predict that antidepressant medication and psychological therapies evoke distinct neural changes.

To test the convergence and divergence of antidepressant- and psychotherapy-evoked neural changes, and their overlap with the brain's affect network.

We employed a quantitative synthesis of three meta-analyses (n = 4206). First, we assessed the common and distinct neural changes evoked by antidepressant medication and psychotherapy, by contrasting two comparable meta-analyses reporting the neural effects of these treatments. Both meta-analyses included patients with affective disorders, including major depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder. The majority were assessed using negative-valence tasks during neuroimaging. Next, we assessed whether the neural changes evoked by antidepressants and psychotherapy overlapped with the brain's affect network, using data from a third meta-analysis of affect-based neural activation.

Neural changes from psychotherapy and antidepressant medication did not significantly converge on any region. Antidepressants evoked neural changes in the amygdala, whereas psychotherapy evoked anatomically distinct changes in the medial prefrontal cortex. Both psychotherapy- and antidepressant-related changes separately converged on regions of the affect network.

This supports the notion of treatment-specific brain effects of antidepressants and psychotherapy. Both treatments induce changes in the affect network, but our results suggest that their effects on affect processing occur via distinct proximal neurocognitive mechanisms of action.

True Colours is an automated symptom monitoring programme used by National Health Service psychiatric services. This study explored whether patients with unipolar treatment-resistant depression (TRD) found this a useful addition to their treatment regimes. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients with TRD, who had engaged in True Colours monitoring as part of the Lithium versus Quetiapine in Depression study. A thematic analysis was used to assess participant experiences of the system.

Six main themes emerged from the data, the most notable indicating that mood monitoring increased patients' insight into their disorder, but that subsequent behaviour change was absent.

Patients with TRD can benefit from mood monitoring via True Colours, making it a worthwhile addition to treatment. Further development of such systems and additional support may be required for patients with TRD to experience further benefits as reported by other patient groups.

Depression is considered to have the highest disability burden of all conditions. Although treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a key contributor to that burden, there is little understanding of the best treatment approaches for it and specifically the effectiveness of available augmentation approaches.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to search and quantify the evidence of psychological and pharmacological augmentation interventions for TRD.

Participants with TRD (defined as insufficient response to at least two antidepressants) were randomised to at least one augmentation treatment in the trial. Pre-post analysis assessed treatment effectiveness, providing an effect size (ES) independent of comparator interventions.

Of 28 trials, 3 investigated psychological treatments and 25 examined pharmacological interventions. Pre-post analyses demonstrated N-methyl-d-aspartate-targeting drugs to have the highest ES (ES = 1.48, 95% CI 1.25–1.71). Other than aripiprazole (four studies, ES = 1.33, 95% CI 1.23–1.44) and lithium (three studies, ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.81–1.20), treatments were each investigated in less than three studies. Overall, pharmacological (ES = 1.19, 95% CI 1.08–1.30) and psychological (ES = 1.43, 95% CI 0.50–2.36) therapies yielded higher ESs than pill placebo (ES = 0.78, 95% CI 0.66–0.91) and psychological control (ES = 0.94, 95% CI 0.36–1.52).

Despite being used widely in clinical practice, the evidence for augmentation treatments in TRD is sparse. Although pre-post meta-analyses are limited by the absence of direct comparison, this work finds promising evidence across treatment modalities.

In the past 3 years, A.H.Y. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly and Sunovion; honoraria for consulting from Allergan, Livanova and Lundbeck, Sunovion and Janssen; and research grant support from Janssen. In the past 3 years, A.J.C. received honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca and Lundbeck; honoraria for consulting with Allergan, Janssen, Livanova, Lundbeck and Sandoz; support for conference attendance from Janssen; and research grant support from Lundbeck. B.B. has recently been (soon to be) on the speakers/advisory board for Hexal, Lilly, Lundbeck, Mundipharma, Pfizer, and Servier. No other conflicts of interest.