If you don’t quantify these things and perform cost-benefit analysis, it’s like saying we shouldn’t drive cars , because in the worst case you burn alive.
SSRI side effect prevalence is a hard thing to measure for a large variety of reasons. But in [1] only 1/4 patients report the side effects as ”very bothersome.” Given that 100% of patients are so anxious/depressed that they want to try psych meds, it seems like SSRIs are a great treatment option for many.
Gotta love the language there. "Very bothersome" sounds so much less problematic than other potential phrasings. Like, "oh dear, I get brain zaps, feel like a zombie, and am having persistent intrusive thoughts that interfere with my ability to think and perform during the day. Gee golly, what a nuisance."
A quarter of patients reporting very troubling side effects is not great for a class of drugs with an effect size around 0.3, or about 10% more reduction in depression symptom scores compared to placebo. If you have run out of options and are desperate for relief, it may be an appealing risk/reward equation for some people. But the notion that 100% of patients believe they need these meds, rather than had the drug recommended by a doctor/psychiatrist (who maybe didn't go into great detail about the potential risks vs tempering expectations about how likely they are to help), is absurd. It totally ignores how our medical system operates in most cases. Many times, the doctors prescribing will be informed by drug company PR literature moreso than careful reading of scientific research.
SSRI side effect prevalence is a hard thing to measure for a large variety of reasons. But in [1] only 1/4 patients report the side effects as ”very bothersome.” Given that 100% of patients are so anxious/depressed that they want to try psych meds, it seems like SSRIs are a great treatment option for many.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719451/