Personal recovery in first-episode psychosis: Beyond clinical and functional recovery.

Clinical recovery First-episode psychosis Functional recovery Partial correlation network Personal recovery

Journal

Schizophrenia research
ISSN: 1573-2509
Titre abrégé: Schizophr Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8804207

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 14 04 2023
revised: 24 01 2024
accepted: 10 02 2024
pubmed: 18 2 2024
medline: 18 2 2024
entrez: 17 2 2024
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The concept of personal recovery after psychotic illness focuses more on patients' social and existential needs compared to traditional outcome measures including clinical and functional recovery. This research aims to contribute to a broad framework on (personal) recovery and associated factors. Data from 203 persons with symptomatic remission of their first-episode psychosis from the ongoing HAMLETT study were analyzed. To determine the relative importance of several biological, clinical, psychological, and social factors in explaining personal recovery as measured by the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS), partial Spearman correlations (controlling for clinical recovery (PANSS) and functional recovery (WHODAS 2.0)) and a bootstrapped multiple regression were performed. Indirect effects on personal recovery within these factors, clinical recovery, and functional recovery were explored using a regularized partial correlation network. Of the factors that explained personal recovery beyond the effects of clinical and functional recovery, social support was the strongest predictor, followed by self-esteem, internalized stigma, and insecure attachment, collectively explaining 48.2 % of the variance. Anhedonia/apathy showed a trend towards a negative correlation. Age at onset, sex, early trauma/neglect, cognition, and being married/cohabiting did not significantly correlate with personal recovery. The network (n = 143) was consistent with these findings and indicated possible mediation pathways for early trauma/neglect, insecure attachment, cognition, and being married/cohabiting. Personal recovery is an important addition to traditional measures of outcome after psychosis. Various quality of life indicators, such as self-esteem and social support, explain variance in personal recovery over clinical and functional recovery.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The concept of personal recovery after psychotic illness focuses more on patients' social and existential needs compared to traditional outcome measures including clinical and functional recovery. This research aims to contribute to a broad framework on (personal) recovery and associated factors.
METHODS METHODS
Data from 203 persons with symptomatic remission of their first-episode psychosis from the ongoing HAMLETT study were analyzed. To determine the relative importance of several biological, clinical, psychological, and social factors in explaining personal recovery as measured by the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS), partial Spearman correlations (controlling for clinical recovery (PANSS) and functional recovery (WHODAS 2.0)) and a bootstrapped multiple regression were performed. Indirect effects on personal recovery within these factors, clinical recovery, and functional recovery were explored using a regularized partial correlation network.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of the factors that explained personal recovery beyond the effects of clinical and functional recovery, social support was the strongest predictor, followed by self-esteem, internalized stigma, and insecure attachment, collectively explaining 48.2 % of the variance. Anhedonia/apathy showed a trend towards a negative correlation. Age at onset, sex, early trauma/neglect, cognition, and being married/cohabiting did not significantly correlate with personal recovery. The network (n = 143) was consistent with these findings and indicated possible mediation pathways for early trauma/neglect, insecure attachment, cognition, and being married/cohabiting.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Personal recovery is an important addition to traditional measures of outcome after psychosis. Various quality of life indicators, such as self-esteem and social support, explain variance in personal recovery over clinical and functional recovery.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38367610
pii: S0920-9964(24)00041-0
doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2024.02.005
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

32-40

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest None.

Auteurs

Isolde L Maas (IL)

Department of Psychiatry, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Marc M Bohlken (MM)

Department of Psychiatry, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.bohlken@umcutrecht.nl.

Shiral S Gangadin (SS)

Department of Psychiatry, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Bram-Sieben Rosema (BS)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Wim Veling (W)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Nynke Boonstra (N)

Department of Psychiatry, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; NHL Stenden, University of Applied Sciences, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands; KieN VIP Mental Health Care Services, Leeuwarden, the Netherlands.

Lieuwe de Haan (L)

Department of Early Psychosis, Amsterdam UMC, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Marieke J H Begemann (MJH)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Sanne Koops (S)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH