16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      UP'S: A Cohort Study on Recovery in Psychotic Disorder Patients: Design Protocol

      methods-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Recovery is a multidimensional concept, including symptomatic, functional, social, as well as personal recovery. The present study aims at exploring psychosocial and biological determinants of personal recovery, and disentangling time-dependent relationships between personal recovery and the other domains of recovery in a sample of people with a psychotic disorder. A cohort study is conducted with a 10-year follow-up. Personal recovery is assessed using the Recovering Quality of Life Questionnaire (ReQoL) and the Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC). Other domains of recovery are assessed by the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale Remission (PANSS-R), the BRIEF-A and the Social Role Participation Questionnaire—Short version (SRPQ) to assess symptomatic, functional and societal recovery, respectively. In addition, multiple biological, psychological, and social determinants are assessed. This study aims to assess the course of personal recovery, and to find determinants and time-dependent relationships with symptomatic, functional and societal recovery in people with a psychotic disorder. Strengths of the study are the large number of participants, long duration of follow-up, multiple assessments over time, extending beyond the treatment trajectory, and the use of a broad range of biological, psychological, and social determinants.

          Related collections

          Most cited references114

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

          Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.

          The relationship of health risk behavior and disease in adulthood to the breadth of exposure to childhood emotional, physical, or sexual abuse, and household dysfunction during childhood has not previously been described. A questionnaire about adverse childhood experiences was mailed to 13,494 adults who had completed a standardized medical evaluation at a large HMO; 9,508 (70.5%) responded. Seven categories of adverse childhood experiences were studied: psychological, physical, or sexual abuse; violence against mother; or living with household members who were substance abusers, mentally ill or suicidal, or ever imprisoned. The number of categories of these adverse childhood experiences was then compared to measures of adult risk behavior, health status, and disease. Logistic regression was used to adjust for effects of demographic factors on the association between the cumulative number of categories of childhood exposures (range: 0-7) and risk factors for the leading causes of death in adult life. More than half of respondents reported at least one, and one-fourth reported > or = 2 categories of childhood exposures. We found a graded relationship between the number of categories of childhood exposure and each of the adult health risk behaviors and diseases that were studied (P or = 50 sexual intercourse partners, and sexually transmitted disease; and 1.4- to 1.6-fold increase in physical inactivity and severe obesity. The number of categories of adverse childhood exposures showed a graded relationship to the presence of adult diseases including ischemic heart disease, cancer, chronic lung disease, skeletal fractures, and liver disease. The seven categories of adverse childhood experiences were strongly interrelated and persons with multiple categories of childhood exposure were likely to have multiple health risk factors later in life. We found a strong graded relationship between the breadth of exposure to abuse or household dysfunction during childhood and multiple risk factors for several of the leading causes of death in adults.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back.

            While resilience has been defined as resistance to illness, adaptation, and thriving, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress is closest to its original meaning. Previous resilience measures assess resources that may promote resilience rather than recovery, resistance, adaptation, or thriving. To test a new brief resilience scale. The brief resilience scale (BRS) was created to assess the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Its psychometric characteristics were examined in four samples, including two student samples and samples with cardiac and chronic pain patients. The BRS was reliable and measured as a unitary construct. It was predictably related to personal characteristics, social relations, coping, and health in all samples. It was negatively related to anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physical symptoms when other resilience measures and optimism, social support, and Type D personality (high negative affect and high social inhibition) were controlled. There were large differences in BRS scores between cardiac patients with and without Type D and women with and without fibromyalgia. The BRS is a reliable means of assessing resilience as the ability to bounce back or recover from stress and may provide unique and important information about people coping with health-related stressors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

              Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychiatry
                Front Psychiatry
                Front. Psychiatry
                Frontiers in Psychiatry
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-0640
                12 January 2021
                2020
                : 11
                : 609530
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Psychiatry, Erasmus MC, Epidemiological and Social Psychiatric Research Institute , Rotterdam, Netherlands
                [2] 2Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam UMC , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [3] 3GGz Breburg , Tilburg, Netherlands
                [4] 4Phrenos Centre of Expertise , Utrecht, Netherlands
                [5] 5Tranzo Department, Tilburg School of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Tilburg University , Tilburg, Netherlands
                [6] 6Parnassia Psychosis Research , Den Haag, Netherlands
                [7] 7GGz Oost Brabant , Oss, Netherlands
                [8] 8Antes , Rotterdam, Netherlands
                [9] 9Emergis , Goes, Netherlands
                [10] 10GGz Delfland , Delft, Netherlands
                [11] 11Stichting Pameijer , Rotterdam, Netherlands
                [12] 12Gemeente Rotterdam , Rotterdam, Netherlands
                [13] 13Department of Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universtiteit , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                [14] 14Fivoor , Den Haag, Netherlands
                [15] 15Department of Health Sciences, Hull York Medical School, York Biomedical Research Institute, University of York , York, United Kingdom
                [16] 16Bavo-Europoort Mental Health Care , Rotterdam, Netherlands
                Author notes

                Edited by: Helen Killaspy, University College London, United Kingdom

                Reviewed by: Peter McPherson, University College London, United Kingdom; Gian Maria Galeazzi, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy

                *Correspondence: Bernice C. van Aken b.vanaken@ 123456erasmusmc.nl

                This article was submitted to Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Rehabilitation, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyt.2020.609530
                7874019
                33584375
                cf71f0f2-262f-4c93-bdaa-294495cc1b4f
                Copyright © 2021 van Aken, Bakia, Wierdsma, Voskes, Van Weeghel, van Bussel, Hagestein, Ruissen, Leendertse, Sewbalak, van der Draai, Hammink, Mandos, van der Gaag, Bonebakker, Van Der Feltz-Cornelis and Mulder.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 23 September 2020
                : 27 November 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 114, Pages: 13, Words: 10196
                Categories
                Psychiatry
                Study Protocol

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                recovery,personal recovery,psychosis,psychotic disorders,cohort study

                Comments

                Comment on this article