The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3; UCLA-LSV3) is widely used for assessing loneliness. Nevertheless, the validity of this scale for assessing loneliness in individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder has not been determined. Additionally, studies validating the eight-item and three-item versions of UCLA-LSV3 have not included individuals with severe mental illness; therefore, whether the short versions are comparable to the full 20-item version of UCLA-LSV3 for this population is unclear. The present study examined the unidimensional structure, internal consistency, concurrent validity, and test–retest reliability of the Chinese versions of UCLA-LSV3 (i.e., 20-item, 8-item, and 3-item versions) to determine which version is most appropriate for assessing loneliness in individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in Taiwan. A total of 300 participants (267 with schizophrenia and 33 with schizoaffective disorder) completed the scales, comprising UCLA-LSV3, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the suicidality module of the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia–Epidemiological Version (K-SADS-E), and the family and peer Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve (APGAR) index. Construct validity was evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis. The three versions of UCLA-LSV3 were compared with the CES-D, the suicidality module of the K-SADS-E, and the family and peer APGAR index to establish concurrent validity. The results indicated that all three versions of UCLA-LSV3 exhibited acceptable to satisfactory psychometric properties in terms of unidimensional constructs, concurrent validity, and test–retest reliability. The full version of UCLA-LSV3 had the best performance, followed by the eight-item version and the three-item version. Moreover, the three versions had relatively strong associations with each other. Therefore, when deliberating which version of UCLA-LSV3 is the best choice for assessing loneliness in individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, healthcare providers and therapists should consider time availability and practicality.

This cross-sectional study assessed the moderating effects of self-esteem and perceived support from friends on the association between self-stigma and suicide risk in individuals with schizophrenia. We included 300 participants (267 with schizophrenia and 33 with schizoaffective disorder). Suicide risk was assessed using items adopted from the suicide module of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview; self-stigma was assessed using the Self-Stigma Scale–Short; perceived support from friends was assessed using the Friend Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve Index; and self-esteem was assessed using the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. A moderation analysis was performed to examine the moderating effects of self-esteem and perceived support from friends on the association between self-stigma and suicide risk. The results indicated that self-stigma was positively associated with suicide risk after the effects of other factors were controlled for. Both perceived support from friends and self-esteem significantly reduced the magnitude of suicide risk in participants with self-stigma. Our findings highlight the value of interventions geared toward ameliorating self-stigma and enhancing self-esteem in order to reduce suicide risk in individuals with schizophrenia.

AimsThe prognostic values of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during heart failure (HF) with acute decompensation or after optimal treatment have not been extensively studied. We hypothesized that posttreatment LVEF has superior predictive value for long-term prognosis than LVEF at admission does.Methods and ResultsIn Protocol 1, 428 acute decompensated HF (ADHF) patients with LVEF ≤35% in a tertiary medical center were enrolled and followed for a mean period of 34.7 ± 10.8 months. The primary and secondary end points were all-cause mortality and HF readmission, respectively. In total, 86 deaths and 240 HF readmissions were recorded. The predictive values of baseline LVEF at admission and LVEF 6 months posttreatment were analyzed and compared. The posttreatment LVEFs were predictive for future events (P = 0.01 for all-cause mortality, P < 0.001 for HF readmission), but the baseline LVEFs were not. In Protocol 2, the outcomes of patients with improved LVEF (change of LVEF: ≥+10%), unchanged LVEF (change of LVEF: –10% to +10%), and reduced LVEF (change of LVEF: ≤–10%) were analyzed and compared. Improved LVEF occurred in 171 patients and was associated with a superior long-term prognosis among all groups (P = 0.02 for all-cause mortality, P < 0.001 for HF readmission). In Protocol 3, independent predictors of improved LVEF were analyzed, and baseline LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) was identified as a powerful predictor in ADHF patients (P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn patients with ADHF, posttreatment LVEF but not baseline LVEF had prognostic power. Improved LVEF was associated with superior long-term prognosis, and baseline LVEDD identified patients who were more likely to have improved LVEF. Therefore, baseline LVEF should not be considered a relevant prognosis factor in clinical practice for patients with ADHF.