Correlates of subjective recovery in an early intervention program for psychoses

Abstract

PRE appears to be a particularly important aspect of social support in predicting subjective recovery. Prospective studies of the importance of PRE are warranted.

Relationships over time of subjective and objective elements of recovery in persons with schizophreni

“…A negative relationship between symptoms and self-perceived recovery was also observed by Corrigan et al (2004). Roe et al (2011) have found no direct correlation between symptom severity and selfreported recovery, while recently Norman et al (2012) found both negative and positive symptoms to be negatively correlated with subjective recovery in first episode psychosis. More recently Kukla et al (2014) have suggested that while the subjective reports of recovery is not related to symptoms, it may moderate the link between symptoms and social function.…”

Are the Effects of Duration of Untreated Psychosis Socially Mediated?

“…In a cross-sectional study, Norman et al 17 found that a measure designed to reflect perceptions of being valued by family and acquaintances was more strongly related to self-perceived recovery than were measures of perceived informational or instrumental support. This finding appears consistent with the considerable body of research showing that expressed emotion (which includes indices of criticism and hostility) is directly related to likelihood of relapse and other aspects of treatment outcome, 58 and more recent research implicating expressions of positive thoughts and feelings from others as being particularly important in predicting social adjustment and likelihood of relapse.…”

“…[16][17][18] In addition, social support is often cited as a very important contributor to recovery by people experiencing a first-episode psychosis (FEP).…”

The Mental Health Recovery Measure Can Be Used to Assess Aspects of Both Customer-Based and Service-Based Recovery in the Context of Severe Mental Illness

“…While this data was used to argue against the polarization of recovery perspectives, it must be noted that these authors did not use CBR measures developed strictly from the accounts of users/patients. However, subsequent research using the two measures of CBR meeting this more stringent definition, i.e., the MHRM-30 and the recovery assessment scale (RAS) (Campbell-Orde et al, 2005; Andresen et al, 2010), have mostly confirmed a negative correlation between CBR scores and symptom-based measures of SBR, namely the Kessler-10 scale (Andresen et al, 2010), the Colorado Symptom Index (Stanhope et al, 2013) and the Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms and Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms (Norman et al, 2013). Others, using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale as a symptom-based measures of SBR, have not replicated this association (Roe et al, 2012), or have replicated it only when restricting analyses to subgroups of patients, according to age at disease onset (Roe et al, 2011).…”

“…In fact, CBR has been directly or indirectly equated to other measures of subjective experience, such as quality-of-life (QoL) (Roe et al, 2011), and the degree to which CBR and SBR are separable constructs is not consensual (Resnick et al, 2004; Andresen et al, 2010; Lloyd et al, 2010; Roe et al, 2011, 2012; Norman et al, 2013; Stanhope et al, 2013). To address this question empirically, as we propose here, stringent conceptualizations of these recovery constructs have been considered by several authors.…”