18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The Relationship Between Clinical and Personal Recovery in Patients With Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Patients describe experiencing personal recovery despite ongoing symptoms of psychosis. The aim of the current research was to perform a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between clinical and personal recovery in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. A comprehensive OvidSP database search was performed to identify relevant studies. Correlation coefficients of the relationship between clinical and personal recovery were retrieved from primary studies. Meta-analyses were performed, calculating mean weighted effect sizes for the association between clinical and personal recovery, hope, and empowerment. Additionally, associations between positive, negative, affective symptoms, general functioning, and personal recovery were investigated. The results show that heterogeneity across studies was substantial. Random effect meta-analysis of the relationship between symptom severity and personal recovery revealed a mean weighted correlation coefficient of r = -.21 (95% CI = -0.27 to -0.14, P < .001). We found the following mean weighted effect size for positive symptoms r = -.20 (95% CI = -0.27 to -0.12, P < .001), negative symptoms r = -.24 (95% CI = -0.33 to -0.15, P < .001), affective symptoms r = -.34 (95% CI = -0.44 to -0.24, P < .001) and functioning r = .21 (95% CI = -0.09 to 0.32, P < .001). The results indicate a significant small to medium association between clinical and personal recovery. Psychotic symptoms show a smaller correlation than affective symptoms with personal recovery. These findings suggest that clinical and personal recovery should both be considered in treatment and outcome monitoring of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, part 1: test selection, reliability, and validity.

          The lack of an accepted standard for measuring cognitive change in schizophrenia has been a major obstacle to regulatory approval of cognition-enhancing treatments. A primary mandate of the National Institute of Mental Health's Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative was to develop a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials of cognition-enhancing treatments for schizophrenia through a broadly based scientific evaluation of measures. The MATRICS Neurocognition Committee evaluated more than 90 tests in seven cognitive domains to identify the 36 most promising measures. A separate expert panel evaluated the degree to which each test met specific selection criteria. Twenty tests were selected as a beta battery. The beta battery was administered to 176 individuals with schizophrenia and readministered to 167 of them 4 weeks later so that the 20 tests could be compared directly. The expert panel ratings are presented for the initially selected 36 tests. For the beta battery tests, data on test-retest reliability, practice effects, relationships to functional status, practicality, and tolerability are presented. Based on these data, 10 tests were selected to represent seven cognitive domains in the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery. The structured consensus method was a feasible and fair mechanism for choosing candidate tests, and direct comparison of beta battery tests in a common sample allowed selection of a final consensus battery. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery is expected to be the standard tool for assessing cognitive change in clinical trials of cognition-enhancing drugs for schizophrenia. It may also aid evaluation of cognitive remediation strategies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Schizophrenia is a cognitive illness: time for a change in focus.

            Schizophrenia is currently classified as a psychotic disorder. This article posits that this emphasis on psychosis is a conceptual fallacy that has greatly contributed to the lack of progress in our understanding of this illness and hence has hampered the development of adequate treatments. Not only have cognitive and intellectual underperformance consistently been shown to be risk factors for schizophrenia, several studies have found that a decline in cognitive functioning precedes the onset of psychosis by almost a decade. Although the question of whether cognitive function continues to decline after psychosis onset is still debated, it is clear that cognitive function in schizophrenia is related to outcome and little influenced by antipsychotic treatment. Thus, our focus on defining (and preventing) the disorder on the basis of psychotic symptoms may be too narrow. Not only should cognition be recognized as the core component of the disorder, our diagnostic efforts should emphasize the changes in cognitive function that occur earlier in development. Putting the focus back on cognition may facilitate finding treatments for the illness before psychosis ever emerges.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Approaching a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials in schizophrenia: the NIMH-MATRICS conference to select cognitive domains and test criteria.

              To stimulate the development of new drugs for the cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) established the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) initiative. This article presents an overview of decisions from the first MATRICS consensus conference. The goals of the meeting were to 1) identify the cognitive domains that should be represented in a consensus cognitive battery and 2) prioritize key criteria for selection of tests for the battery. Seven cognitive domains were selected based on a review of the literature and input from experts: working memory, attention/vigilance, verbal learning and memory, visual learning and memory, reasoning and problem solving, speed of processing, and social cognition. Based on discussions at this meeting, five criteria were considered essential for test selection: good test-retest reliability, high utility as a repeated measure, relationship to functional outcome, potential response to pharmacologic agents, and practicality/tolerability. The results from this meeting constitute the initial steps for reaching a consensus cognitive battery for clinical trials in schizophrenia.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Schizophrenia Bulletin
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0586-7614
                1745-1701
                May 2018
                April 06 2018
                July 14 2017
                May 2018
                April 06 2018
                July 14 2017
                : 44
                : 3
                : 631-642
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Arkin Institute for Mental Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Psychiatry, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Mentrum, part of Arkin, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Article
                10.1093/schbul/sbx088
                5890469
                29036720
                97cc8a08-caea-42c5-87bb-890a47b29e27
                © 2017

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article