Objective: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of different types of physical exercise (PE) on negative symptoms in schizophrenia patients. Mind-body exercise (MBE), aerobic exercise (AE) and resistance training (RT) will be investigated. Method: The Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from their inception until April 26, 2018. Randomized controlled trials comparing PE with any control group in patients with schizophrenia were included when negative symptoms had been assessed. This meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The methodological quality of these studies was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. Moderator, sensitivity, and meta regression analyses were conducted to explore causes of heterogeneity and impact of study quality. Results: We included 22 studies (N=1249). The overall methodological quality was poor. The meta-analysis (random effects model) showed a medium significant effect in favor of any PE intervention (Hedges' g=0.434, 95% CI=0.196 to 0.671) versus any control condition. MBE and AE respectively showed a medium significant effect (Hedges' g=0.461) and a small significant effect (Hedges' g=0.341) versus any control condition. The effect of RT could not be examined. The overall heterogeneity was high (I 2 =76%) and could not be reduced with moderator or sensitivity analyses. 3 Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated that PE could be a promising intervention in the treatment of negative symptoms. However, the quality of the included studies was low and heterogeneity was high, which makes it impossible to make a clear recommendation. Therefore, results should be interpreted with care.

Living well in spite of residual symptoms of mental illness is measured with the construct of personal recovery. The CHIME framework might be suitable to evaluate personal recovery measures and guide instrument choice. Three validated measures were evaluated in Dutch patients with a psychotic disorder (N = 52). We compared the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS), the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM), and the Netherlands Empowerment List (NEL). The measures were assessed on six criteria: content validity (based on CHIME), convergent validity with a social support measure, internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, item interpretability, and ease of administration. The MHRM scored high on content validity with a balanced distribution of items covering the CHIME framework. The MHRM and the NEL showed moderate convergent validity with social support. In all three measures, internal consistency was moderate and floor and ceiling effects were absent. The NEL scores demonstrated a high degree of item interpretability. Ease of administration was moderate for all three measures. Finally, the CHIME framework demonstrated good utility as a framework in guiding instrument choice and evaluation of personal recovery measures. The MHRM showed the best overall result. However, differences between measures were minimal. Generalization of the results is limited by cultural and linguistic factors in the assessment for the subjective measures (i.e. content validity and item interpretability). The broad and multidimensional construct of personal recovery might lead to ambiguous interpretations. Scientific consensus on a well-defined personal recovery construct is needed.