Yu Yu1,2, Xi Xiao3, Min Yang3, Xiao-Ping Ge4, Tong-Xin Li1, Gui Cao5, Ying-Jun Liao6. 1. Department of Social Medicine and Health Management, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, China. 2. Division of Prevention and Community Research, Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Changsha Psychiatric Hospital, Changsha, China. 4. Department of Geriatrics, Changsha Psychiatric Hospital, Changsha, China. 5. Department of Health Insurance and Long Term Care, Chinese Academy of Labor and Social Security, Beijing, China. 6. Department of Nephrology, Hunan Key Laboratory of Kidney Disease and Blood Purification, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Abstract
Objective: The past few decades have seen an evolution in the understanding of recovery from a clinical-based view that focuses on symptoms and functioning to a more consumer-oriented perspective that focuses on personal recovery. The present study aimed to assess personal recovery among people living with schizophrenia and determine its predictors. Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited a random sample of 400 people living with schizophrenia (PLS) from twelve community health centers of Hunan, China. Recovery was assessed using the short-form 8-item Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-8). PLS disability and functioning were assessed using the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), respectively. Results: Participants had a mean personal recovery score of 20.29 (SD: 9.31, Range: 8-40). Personal recovery was predicted by both socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Older age (r = -0.17, p < 0.001), being female (r = -2.29, p = 0.019), and higher disability (r = -0.22, p < 0.001) were independently associated with worse personal recovery, while having a college education (r = 5.49, p = 0.002), and higher functioning (r = 0.09, p = 0.017) were independently associated with better personal recovery. Conclusion: Interventions to improve recovery among PLS may be best served by reducing the impact of disability and improving functioning, with targeted interventions for individuals who are older, female and less educated in order to increase their likelihood of recovery.
Objective: The past few decades have seen an evolution in the understanding of recovery from a clinical-based view that focuses on symptoms and functioning to a more consumer-oriented perspective that focuses on personal recovery. The present study aimed to assess personal recovery among people living with schizophrenia and determine its predictors. Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited a random sample of 400 people living with schizophrenia (PLS) from twelve community health centers of Hunan, China. Recovery was assessed using the short-form 8-item Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-8). PLS disability and functioning were assessed using the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), respectively. Results:Participants had a mean personal recovery score of 20.29 (SD: 9.31, Range: 8-40). Personal recovery was predicted by both socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Older age (r = -0.17, p < 0.001), being female (r = -2.29, p = 0.019), and higher disability (r = -0.22, p < 0.001) were independently associated with worse personal recovery, while having a college education (r = 5.49, p = 0.002), and higher functioning (r = 0.09, p = 0.017) were independently associated with better personal recovery. Conclusion: Interventions to improve recovery among PLS may be best served by reducing the impact of disability and improving functioning, with targeted interventions for individuals who are older, female and less educated in order to increase their likelihood of recovery.
Authors: G Harrison; K Hopper; T Craig; E Laska; C Siegel; J Wanderling; K C Dube; K Ganev; R Giel; W an der Heiden; S K Holmberg; A Janca; P W Lee; C A León; S Malhotra; A J Marsella; Y Nakane; N Sartorius; Y Shen; C Skoda; R Thara; S J Tsirkin; V K Varma; D Walsh; D Wiersma Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Lone Petersen; Anne Thorup; Johan Øqhlenschlaeger; Torben Øqstergaard Christensen; Pia Jeppesen; Gertrud Krarup; Per Jørrgensen; Erik Lykke Mortensen; Merete Nordentoft Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Robin Michael Van Eck; Thijs Jan Burger; Astrid Vellinga; Frederike Schirmbeck; Lieuwe de Haan Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Donal O'Keeffe; Ailish Hannigan; Roisin Doyle; Anthony Kinsella; Ann Sheridan; Aine Kelly; Kevin Madigan; Elizabeth Lawlor; Mary Clarke Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 5.744