The relationship between clinical and recovery dimensions of outcome in mental health

Background: Little is known about the empirical relationship between clinical and personal recovery. Aims: To examine whether there are separate constructs of clinical recovery and personal recovery dimensions of outcome, how they change over time and how they can be assessed. Method: Standardised outcome measures were administered at baseline and one-year follow-up to participants in the REFOCUS Trial (ISRCTN02507940). An exploratory factor analysis was conducted and a confirmatory factor analysis assessed change across time. Results: We identified three factors: patient-rated personal recovery, patient-rated clinical recovery and staff-rated clinical recovery. Only the personal recovery factor improved after one year. HHI, CANSAS-P and HoNOS were the best measures for research and practice. Conclusions: The identification of three rather than two factors was unexpected. Our findings support the value of concurrently assessing staff and patient perceptions of outcome. Only the personal recovery factor changed over time, this desynchrony between clinical and recovery outcomes providing empirical evidence that clinical recovery and personal recovery are not the same. We did not find evidence of a trade-off between clinical recovery and personal recovery outcomes. Optimal assessment based on our data would involve assessment of hope, social disability and patient-rated unmet need

Psychological approaches to understanding and promoting recovery in psychosis and bipolar disorder:a mixed-methods approach

BackgroundRecovery in mental health is a relatively new concept, but it is becoming more accepted that people can recover from psychosis. Recovery-orientated services are recommended for adult mental health, but with little evidence base to support this. ObjectivesTo facilitate understanding and promotion of recovery in psychosis and bipolar disorder (BD), in a manner that is empowering and acceptable to service users. MethodThere were six linked projects using qualitative and quantitative methodologies: (1) developing and piloting a service user-defined measure of recovery; (2) a Delphi study to determine levels of consensus around the concept of recovery; (3) examination of the psychological factors associated with recovery and how these fluctuate over time; (4) development and evaluation of cognitive–behavioural approaches to guided self-help including a patient preference trial (PPT); (5) development and evaluation of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) for understanding and preventing suicide in psychosis including a randomised controlled trial (RCT); and (6) development and evaluation of a cognitive–behavioural approach to recovery in recent onset BD, including a RCT of recovery-focused cognitive–behavioural therapy (RfCBT). Service user involvement was central to the programme. ResultsMeasurement of service user-defined recovery from psychosis (using the Subjective Experience of Psychosis Scale) and BD (using the Bipolar Recovery Questionnaire) was shown to be feasible and valid. The consensus study revealed a high level of agreement among service users for defining recovery, factors that help or hinder recovery and items which demonstrate recovery. Negative emotions, self-esteem and hope predicted recovery judgements, both cross-sectionally and longitudinally, whereas positive symptoms had an indirect effect. In the PPT, 89 participants entered the study, three were randomised, 57 were retained in the trial until 15-month follow-up (64%). At follow-up there was no overall treatment effect on the primary outcome (Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery total; p = 0.82). In the suicide prevention RCT, 49 were randomised and 35 were retained at 6-month follow-up (71%). There were significant improvements in suicidal ideation [Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire; treatment effect = –12.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) –24.3 to –0.14], Suicide Probability Scale (SPS; treatment effect = –7.0, 95% CI –15.5 to 0) and hopelessness (subscale of the SPS; treatment effect = –3.8, 95% CI –7.3 to –0.5) at follow-up. In the RCT for BD, 67 participants were randomised and 45 were retained at the 12-month follow-up (67%). Recovery score significantly improved in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) at follow-up (310.87, 95% CI 75.00 to 546.74). At 15-month follow-up, 32 participants had experienced a relapse of either depression or mania (20 TAU vs. 12 RfCBT). The difference in time to recurrence was significant (estimated hazard ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.78; p < 0.006). ConclusionsThis research programme has improved our understanding of recovery in psychosis and BD. Key findings indicate that measurement of recovery is feasible and valid. It would be feasible to scale up the RCTs to assess effectiveness of our therapeutic approaches in larger full trials, and two of the studies (CBT for suicide prevention in psychosis and recovery in BD) found significant benefits on their primary outcomes despite limited statistical power, suggesting definitive trials are warranted. FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme

Religiosity and psychological resilience in patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: an international cross-sectional study

Objective The impact of religious/spiritual activities on clinical outcomes in patients with serious mental illnesses remains controversial, which was addressed in this international cross-sectional study. Method Three-hundred sixty-nine subjects were recruited from Austria (n = 189) and Japan (n = 180), consisting of 112 outpatients with paranoid schizophrenia, 120 with bipolar I disorder (DSM-IV), and 137 healthy controls. Religiosity was assessed in terms of attendance and importance of religious/spiritual activities, while resilience was assessed using the 25-item Resilience Scale. General linear models were used to test whether higher religiosity will be associated with higher resilience, higher social functioning, and lower psychopathology. The association between levels of spiritual well-being and resilience was also examined. Results Attendance of religious services (F[4,365] = 0.827, P = 0.509) and importance of religion/spirituality (F[3,365] = 1.513, P = 0.211) did not show significant associations with resilience. Regarding clinical measures, a modest association between higher importance of religion/spirituality and residual manic symptoms was observed in bipolar patients (F[3,118] = 3.120, P = 0.029). In contrast to the findings regarding religiosity, spiritual well-being showed a strong positive correlation with resilience (r = 0.584, P &lt;0.001). Conclusion The protective effect of religiosity in terms of resilience, social functioning, and psychopathology was not evident in our sample. Spiritual well-being appears more relevant to resilience than religiosity