Abstract
Background Functional recovery of patients with clinical and sub-clinical psychosis is associated with clinical, neuropsychological and developmental factors. Less is known how these factors predict functional outcome in same models.
Aim We investigated functional outcome and its predictors in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) or confirmed vs. non-confirmed clinical high risk to psychosis (CHR-P vs. CHR-N).
Methods Altogether, 130 FEP, 60 CHR-P and 47 CHR-N patients were recruited and extensively examined at baseline (T0) and at 9 (T1) and 18 (T2) months after baseline. Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) at T0, T1 and T2, and psychotic, depression and anxiety symptoms at T1 and T2 were assessed. Functional outcome was predicted in multivariate repeated ANOVA.
Results During follow-up, GAF improved significantly in FEP and CHR-P but not in CHR-N patients. In FEP, single marital status, low basic education, poor work situation, disorganised symptoms, perceptual deficits and poor premorbid adjustment, in CHR-P, disorganised symptoms and poor premorbid adjustment and in CHR-N, low basic education, poor work situation and general symptoms predicted poor functional outcome. In FEP, psychotic symptoms at T1 and in CHR-P, psychotic and depression symptoms at T1 and anxiety symptoms at T2 associated with poor functioning.
Discussion In FEP and CHR-P patients, poor premorbid adjustment and disorganised symptomatology are common predictors for functional outcome, while poor education and work situation predict poor functional outcome in FEP and CHR-N patients. Interventions aimed to improve studying and ability to work are most important in improving functioning of patients with clinical or subclinical psychosis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The TEPS has been funded by the EVO Funding of Turku City Health Care and Turku University Hospital (grant nos. TEPS600083, P13196, P3860, P3848) and by the Academy of Finland (grant nos. 278155 and 278171).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The TEPS study programme was carried out in accordance with the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study design and protocols were approved by the ethical committee of the Turku University Hospital. Informed written consent from participants was obtained after the procedure had been fully explained to them.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: The TEPS has been funded by the EVO Funding of Turku City Health Care and Turku University Hospital (grant nos. TEPS600083, P13196, P3860, P3848) and by the Academy of Finland (grant nos. 278155 and 278171).
Declaration of interest: The authors have nothing to report.
↵* The TEPS Group is listed in Supplementary Material
Data Availability
Data are not yet available.
