Next Article in Journal
The Feasibility of Liver Biopsy for Undefined Nodules in Patients under Surveillance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Is Biopsy Really a Useful Tool?
Next Article in Special Issue
Hospitalizations for Anorexia Nervosa during the COVID-19 Pandemic in France: A Nationwide Population-Based Study
Previous Article in Journal
Early Diagnosis of Lung Cancer: The Urgent Need of a Clinical Test
Previous Article in Special Issue
Calibration and Validation of a PREMIUM-DT Item Bank to Measure the Experience of Drug Therapy for Patients with Severe Mental Illness
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 15
10.3390/jcm11154400
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Real-World Functioning in Psychiatric Outpatients: Predictive Factors

by
Paola Bozzatello
*,
Benedetta Giordano
,
Cristiana Montemagni
,
Paola Rocca
and
Silvio Bellino
Department of Neuroscience, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(15), 4400; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm11154400
Submission received: 26 March 2022 / Revised: 17 June 2022 / Accepted: 27 July 2022 / Published: 28 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Use of Real-World Data (RWD) to Improve Health Care and Outcomes in Patients with Mental Health Disorders)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Introduction: Investigations on predictors of real-world functioning were mainly performed in patients with schizophrenia, while fewer studies have been conducted in other psychiatric disorders. Objective: Our objective was to identify clinical, socio-demographic, and illness-related predictors of real-world functioning during 12 months of standard treatments in outpatients with different diagnoses. Methods: Outpatients (n = 1019) with schizophrenia (SZ), major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD), and borderline personality disorder (BPD) were evaluated with the following tools: SCID-5-CV and SCID-5-PD, CGI-S, SAT-P, DAI-10, and PSP. Change of PSP (ΔPSP) between baseline and 12 months was used as the dependent variable in multiple regression analysis. Results: Higher PSP score at baseline and the achievement of main milestones predicted better functioning after follow-up in all subgroups of patients, with the exception of BD. In the total sample, ΔPSP was related to age of onset, treatments, and quality of life, and inversely related to psychiatric anamnesis, antidepressants, and global symptoms. In SZ, ΔPSP was related to adherence and quality of life. In MDD, ΔPSP was related to psychotherapy and quality of life, and inversely related to antidepressants and global symptoms. In BD, ΔPSP was related to age of onset, antipsychotics, and quality of life, while it was inversely related to psychiatric anamnesis. In BPD, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, psychotherapy, and quality of life were directly related to ΔPSP, while suicidal attempts and global symptoms had an inverse relation. Conclusions: Several socio-demographic and illness-related variables predicted improvement of real-world functioning, besides psychopathology and severity of the disease.

1. Introduction

Despite last years’ significant advances in pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in the field of mental illness that have facilitated symptomatic remission, real-life disability produced by these diseases remains a huge burden for patients and their families in terms of health economic resources and days away from work. For this reason, the authors focused their investigations on functional outcomes, in particular on real-world functioning, which still represents an unmet need in people suffering from severe psychiatric disorders. with regard to functionality, two core concepts can be distinguished: (1) functional capacity (“what a patient can do”: the ability to obtain a good level of functioning under optimal conditions, which can be evaluated by performance-based ratings carried out in a neutral environment) and (2) real-world functioning (“what a patient actually does”: the actual performance when the subject faces the real circumstances of his life, assessed through measures carried out in the real-world) [1,2,3,4]. The everyday performance includes ordinary activities such as global organization, economic management, communication abilities and social interactions, independent living, and medication management. It has been noted that there is a gap between functional capacity and actual performance: functional capacity seems to be a predictor of real-world functioning (even though its effect is mediated by many other factors that influence behaviors in everyday life) and can contribute to the gap, particularly in schizophrenia (SZ) [3,4,5,6].
Most of the studies in this field are performed in patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia as it produces a high degree of impairment in different domains of everyday life (employment, independent living, marital status, and interpersonal relationships) [7,8,9]. In this disorder, improvement of functioning in the real context represents the major objective of integrated treatments [10,11]. Several studies aimed at identifying the determinants of functioning stated that obtainment of real-life functional milestones, such as educational level, independent living, work, marital status, and interpersonal relationships, depends on a large variety of factors related to the characteristics of the illness, the individual, resources, and the social context of the patient [6,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. In particular, recent meta-analyses highlighted the central role of neuro and social cognition, metacognitive abilities, and negative symptoms [21,22,23].
Over the years, studies on this topic have expanded to include other mental disorders, with a growing interest for bipolar disorder (BP). These patients showed a lower rate of achievement of functional milestones than the general population due to the long-lasting course of the disorder and the impairment in physical, work, and social functioning persisting long after symptomatic recovery, with an important reduction of patients’ quality of life (QoL) [24,25,26,27,28]. Several authors observed that mood symptoms and personal-related factors had a significant effect on a wide range of everyday expressions of functioning [27,29,30,31,32,33]. All phases of the disease, including symptom-free intervals, seem to have a role in compromising community functioning [34,35,36]. In addition, authors found that depressive phases are more damaging to real-life functioning than mania [37,38]. Moreover, the presence of subsyndromal depressive symptoms represents one of the main predictors of functional impairment, in particular of attitudes such as giving up and self-blame [32,39,40,41]. Recent papers focused specifically on neurocognitive function [27,28,30,42,43], as cognitive deficits were considered one of the main determinants of functional impairment, and evidence showed that better performance in some areas, such as attention, executive functions, and verbal memory, are predictors of better psychosocial functioning [44].
Even if major depressive disorder (MDD) is considered nowadays the main cause of functional impairment [45], the available literature in this field is poor. Real-world functioning in MDD can be divided into two distinct domains: (1) adaptive behavior, which includes activities necessary for everyday living (self-care, vocation, and household maintenance); and (2) interpersonal behavior, which represents the ability to initiate and maintain social contacts [1,46], with an important gap between competence and real-world actual performance, possibly mediated by negative self-efficacy beliefs [47]. During the years, authors evaluated the impact of MDD on several aspects of functioning and on QoL, concluding that depressive and cognitive symptoms affect functioning in real-life, in direct proportion to increase of severity [48,49,50], and that a worse quality of life and functioning at baseline is significantly related to poor treatment outcome [48,49,50,51,52]. Additionally, in this disorder, recent studies focused on investigating the impact of cognitive symptoms (i.e., impairment of concentration and attention), which can hamper the functional performance [53,54,55,56,57,58,59].
Little is known about functional impairment associated with severe personality disorders (PD), and only a limited number of studies [60,61] have investigated these concepts in samples of patients with different diagnoses of PD [62,63,64]. The majority of the available studies focused mainly on borderline personality disorder (BPD), exploring the functional course of the disease [65,66,67,68,69,70]. Such papers found that the recovery of psychosocial functioning in BPD patients was less substantial than symptomatic improvement and that patients experience an important occupational and social impairment [68], similar to patients with MDD [71], which persists long after the symptomatic remission in a vast portion of patients [60]. However, these concepts, including engagement in meaningful vocation and relationships, are partly different from that of real-world functioning, which measures the actual performance of patients in the real world [66].
This observational investigation is aimed at identifying, in a sample of outpatients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, or borderline personality disorder, whether socio-demographic and clinical variables may predict a change of the real-world functioning.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Subjects

The present study was conducted in 1019 outpatients who attended the “Struttura Complessa di Psichiatria Universitaria” of the Department of Neuroscience “Rita Levi Montalcini” of the University of Turin, Italy. Patients were enrolled between June 2015 and December 2021. Evaluation period was one year. The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of 1995 (as revised in Edinburgh in 2000) and was approved by the Local Ethical Committee (LREC; Protocol number: 0057625). For all patients, the written informed consent was collected prior to their participation and after a complete description of the study. The study scrupulously followed the rules on the handling of biomedical data (Council of the EU: Data Protection, 2015).

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Participants met a diagnosis of: (1) major depressive disorder, or (2) bipolar disorder, or (3) schizophrenia, or (4) borderline personality disorder (according to DSM-5 criteria). Disorders were diagnosed by an expert clinician (P.B.) and were confirmed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5-Clinical Version (SCID-5-CV) and Personality Disorders (SCID-5-PD) [72,73].
Age of inclusion was between 18 and 60 years.
The exclusion criteria were lifetime diagnoses of delirium and/or neurocognitive disorders (major or mild).

2.3. Participants

Patients received standard care provided in community mental health centers in Italy, including pharmacotherapy, in accordance with the international guidelines, clinical monitoring with psychiatric visits at least monthly, and psychotherapy for selected patients.
Medications commonly prescribed in clinical practice in Italy include antidepressants (sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, and duloxetine), mood stabilizers (lithium salts, valproic acid, and lamotrigine), and antipsychotics (olanzapine, risperidone, aripiprazole, and quetiapine).
In patients with a diagnosis of MDD or BPD, interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) was offered. Patients with MDD were treated with traditional IPT lasting 16 weeks [74], while patients with BPD were treated with the revised adaptation of IPT to BPD (IPT-BPD), lasting 10 months [75]. Patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were not treated with psychotherapy in our study.

2.4. Assessment

Sociodemographic and illness-related characteristics were collected during the psychiatric visits, with a semi-structured interview at baseline (t0). Anamnestic reports were confirmed when possible, by family members or caregivers. Data were entered in a password-protected database.
Categorical variables included: gender, working (employed/not employed), marital status (with/without long-term relationships), and living status (independent/dependent) considered as indicators of attainment in functional milestones, as well as psychiatric anamnesis, suicide attempts, and actual treatment with antipsychotics and/or mood stabilizers and/or antidepressants and/or psychotherapy. Medication intake was recorded by directly asking the patients and caregivers. Age, education level, age at onset (first psychiatric visit), illness duration (years passed from the first psychiatric visit), and previous hospitalizations (voluntary or mandatory) were included as continuous variables.
Furthermore, patients were tested at baseline (t0) with the following evaluation tools.
Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) [76] has been used to evaluate the overall severity of the illness. It is a three-item clinician-rated instrument which consists of three different measures: severity of illness (CGI-S), global improvement (CGI-I), and efficacy index (CGI-E). For the purpose of this study, we considered the first item (CGI-S), that is a seven-point scale testing the severity of the illness at the time of the assessment. A higher score corresponds to a greater severity.
The attitude towards psychiatric medications was rated using the Drug Attitude Inventory-10 (DAI-10) [77]. It is a self-report scale (short-version of the DAI-30). The scoring ranges between −10 and +10, where a total score greater than zero indicates a positive attitude toward medications, while a total score of less than zero indicates a negative attitude.
The personal satisfaction with different aspects of daily living was evaluated with the Satisfaction Profile (SAT-P) [78]. It is a self-evaluation instrument including 32 scales, which can be considered as subjective indicators of quality of life (psychological, physical, psychophysical, relational, and work-related). For this study, we used the “factors-related score”: for each item the patient indicated his satisfaction in the last month on a scale ranging from “extremely dissatisfied” (0) to “extremely satisfied” (100). In accordance with our choice, some authors reported that self-reporting measures of quality of life are more adequate than clinician-evaluating measures [1,79,80].
Personal and Social Performance (PSP) [81] was used to assess functioning. The PSP is a clinician-rated scale specifically designed to evaluate real-world functioning in patients during the course of treatment. This instrument comes from the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale—SOFAS [82] and measures: (1) socially useful activities, (2) personal and social relationships, (3) self-care, and (4) disturbing and aggressive behaviors. Each area is rated on a six-point scale from “absent” to “very severe” impairment. Out of the rating on the four subdimensions, a total score between 1 and 100 can be established, in which a higher score corresponds to a better functioning. The PSP scale has been re-administered to all patients after 12 months of standard treatment (t1).

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, SPSS, version 28 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).
First, we calculated linear regression for continuous variables and performed Chi-square test for categorical variables. Linear regression between change of PSP score and the continuous variables (age, age of illness onset, level of education, illness duration, drug attitude (DAI-10 score), level of global symptoms (CGI-S score), and subjective perception of quality of life (SAT-P score)) was performed. Chi-square test was performed for the categorical variables (gender, working, marital status and independent living, positive psychiatric anamnesis, record of suicide attempts, use of antipsychotics, use of antidepressants, use of mood stabilizers, and ongoing psychotherapies).
Then, all socio-demographic and clinical variables that reached statistical significance at the univariate analysis (p ≤ 0.05) were included in a multiple regression analysis (stepwise backward). The difference of PSP score between 12 months (t1) and baseline (t0) (ΔPSP) was used as the dependent variable.
Statistical analyses were performed in the whole sample of patients and then in each subsample of patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and borderline personality disorder. Significance level was p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

Of the 1019 outpatients in our sample, 17.9% had a diagnosis of schizophrenia, 42.4% a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, 21.5% a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, and 18.1% a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. There were 376 males (36.9%), the mean age (mean ± SD) was 51.01 ± 15.32 years, and the mean level of education (mean ± SD) was 11.12 ± 4.21 years. Patients showed a moderate impairment in real-world functioning, with a PSP total score (mean ± SD) = 64.32 ± 10.75, with a lower level for patients with SZ (57.94 ± 10.57). The mean rate of hospitalization in our sample was 0.73 ± 2.5. The mean number of days in hospital was 6.2 ± 3.4.
The demographic and clinical features of the total sample and of the four diagnostic groups are presented in Table 1.
In the whole sample of 1019 patients, continuous variables that were found to be significantly related to the change of PSP score were: age of illness onset (Bst = 0.13; p = 0.001); duration of illness (Bst = −0.09; p = 0.008); number of hospitalizations, both voluntary (Bst = –0.07; p = 0.03) and mandatory (Bst = –0.08; p = 0.008); PSP score at T0 (Bst = 0.40; p = 0.001); CGI-S score (Bst r = 0.11; p = 0.001); DAI-10 score (Bst = 0.21; p = 0.001), and SAT-P score (Bst r = 0.61; p = 0.001). Categorical variables with a significant value of Chi-square test were: medications with antipsychotics (χ2 = 109.40; p = 0.001), with mood stabilizers (χ2 = 93.43; p = 0.001), with antidepressants (χ2 = 106.83; p = 0.001); psychotherapy (χ2 = 236.69; p = 0.001); being employed (χ2 = 392.20; p = 0.001); having a stable relationship (χ2 = 334.20; p = 0.001); and living independently (χ2 = 282.81; p = 0.001). All these variables were associated with better values of ΔPSP. On the contrary, male gender (χ2 = 88.01; p = 0.001); positive psychiatric anamnesis (χ2 = 86.79; p = 0.001); and suicide attempts (χ2 = 122.53); p = 0.001) were associated with lower values of ΔPSP. All significant variables were included in the multiple regression analysis. Results showed that age of illness onset (p = 0.001); antipsychotics (p = 0.001), mood stabilizers (p = 0.001), and psychotherapy (p = 0.001); SAT-P score (p = 0.001); PSP score at T0 (p = 0.001); being employed (p = 0.001); having a stable relationship (p = 0.001); and living independently (p = 0.001) were independently related to the change of PSP score. A positive psychiatric anamnesis (p = 0.01), use of antidepressants (p = 0.025), and CGI-S score (p = 0.001) were independently, but inversely related.
In the group of patients with a diagnosis of SZ, the following continuous variables were found to be significant: PSP score at T0 (Bst = 0.37; p = 0.001), SAT-P score (Bst = 0.66; p = 0.001), DAI-10 score (Bst = 0.77; p = 0.001), and CGI-S score (Bst = 0.23; p = 0.003). Categorical variables with significant results of Chi-square test were: being employed (Bst = 59.07; p = 0.001), having stable relationships (Bst = 32.70; p = 0.02), and living independently (Bst = 82.14; p = 0.001). These variables were associated with better values of ΔPSP. Male gender (Bst = 38.64; p = 0.005) presented lower values of ΔPSP. It has been found that SAT-P (p = 0.001), DAI-10 score (p = 0.001), PSP score at T0 (p = 0.001), working (p = 0.001), having stable relationships (p = 0.001), and living by themselves (p = 0.001) were independently related to the PSP change in the multiple regression.
In the group of patients with a diagnosis of MDD, we found significant results for the following continuous variables: age (Bst = –0.15; p = 0.001), age of illness onset (Bst = –0.10; p = 0.03), PSP score at T0 (Bst = 0.45; p = 0.001), CGI-S score (Bst = 0.24; p = 0.001), DAI-10 score (Bst = 0.27; p = 0.001), and SAT-P score (Bst = 0.79; p = 0.001). Categorical variables with significant results of Chi-square test were: working (χ2 = 175.24; p = 0.001), having relationships (χ2 = 172.86; p = 0.001), living independently (χ2 = 116.14; p = 0.001), medications with antidepressants (χ2 = 129.16; p = 0.001), and psychotherapy (χ2 = 207.95; p = 0.001). These factors were related to higher values of ΔPSP. On the contrary, male gender (χ2 = 61.16; p = 0.001), positive psychiatric anamnesis (χ2 = 67.59; p = 0.001), and record of suicide attempts (χ2 = 97.78; p = 0.001) were associated with less favorable values of ΔPSP. Variables significantly and independently related to PSP change in the multiple regression analysis were: PSP score at T0 (p = 0.001), SAT-P score (p = 0.001), having a stable relationship (p = 0.001), being employed (p = 0.001), and psychotherapy (p = 0.001). Variables inversely related to PSP change were: medications with antidepressants (p = 0.001), and CGI-S (p = 0.006).
In the group of patients with a diagnosis of BD, the continuous variables significantly related with PSP change were: age of illness onset (Bst = 0.25; p = 0.001), duration of illness (Bst = –0.22; p = 0.003), education level (Bst = –0.19; p = 0.01), PSP score at T0 (Bst = 0.5; p = 0.001), CGI-S score (Bst = 0.48; p = 0.001), DAI-10 score (Bst = 0.40; p = 0.001), and SAT-P score (Bst = 0.73; p = 0.001). Significant dichotomic variables at Chi-square test were: working (χ2 = 121.02; p = 0.001), having relationships (χ2 = 140.24; p = 0.001), living independently (χ2 = 92.76; p = 0.001), medications with antidepressants (χ2 = 44.47; p = 0.01), mood stabilizers (χ2 = 73.05; p = 0.001), and antipsychotics (χ2 = 45.63; p = 0.007). These factors had a positive association with ΔPSP, while a negative association was found for male gender (χ2 = 55.71; p = 0.001), positive psychiatric anamnesis (χ2 = 60.70; p = 0.001), and suicide attempts (χ2 = 52.34; p = 0.001). In the multiple regression analysis variables significantly and independently related to PSP change were: SAT-P score (p = 0.001); having a stable relationship (p = 0.001); working (p = 0.002), age at illness onset (p = 0.01), and medications with antipsychotics (p = 0.02). A positive psychiatric anamnesis (p = 0.003) was inversely related to PSP improvement.
In conclusion, in the group of BPD patients, we found significant results for the following continuous variables: age of illness onset (Bst = 0.18; p = 0.03), years of education (Bst = 0.17; p = 0.02), PSP score at T0 (Bst = 0.52; p = 0.001), CGI-S score (Bst = 0.36; p = 0.001), DAI-10 score (Bst = –0.38; p = 0.001), and SAT-P score (Bst = –0.05; p = 0.05). Regarding dichotomic variables, we found significant values of Chi-square test for: working (χ2 = 127.81; p = 0.001), having relationships (χ2 = 120.23; p = 0.001), living independently (χ2 = 73.09; p = 0.001), antidepressants (χ2 = 66.61; p = 0.001), mood stabilizers (χ2 = 40.47; p = 0.007), antipsychotics (χ2 = 48.82; p = 0.001), and psychotherapy (χ2 = 160.02; p = 0.001). These factors were associated with more favorable values of ΔPSP. Male gender (χ2 = 51.14; p = 0.001) and suicide attempts (χ2 = 43.73; p = 0.003) had a negative association with ΔPSP. Variables significantly and independently related to PSP change with the multiple regression analysis were PSP score at T0 (p = 0.001), SAT-P score (p = 0.001), being employed (p = 0.001), having relationships (p = 0.001), living independently (p = 0.005), use of mood stabilizers (p = 0.002), antipsychotics (p = 0.04), and psychotherapy (p = 0.03). Variables inversely related to PSP improvement were CGI-S (p = 0.001) and record of suicide attempts (p = 0.01).
Table 2 summarizes significant results of multiple regression analysis of the total sample and of the four diagnostic subgroups.

4. Discussion

Impaired real-world functioning, represented by different degrees of difficulties in attaining life milestones (employment, independent living, and a stable interpersonal relationship), is a feature shared by several psychiatric disorders. Among factors that may influence the global functioning in the real world, quality of life, treatment adherence, and severity of psychiatric symptoms are widely studied [13,14,83,84]. Our study was aimed to evaluate whether several socio-demographic, illness-related, and clinical variables can predict the change of functioning in real-world outpatients with different psychiatric disorders at 12 months follow-up.
Several previous investigations focused on predictive factors of functional outcomes in a single baseline evaluation or by comparing patients to healthy controls. However, few recent studies investigate the relationship between these factors and the change of real-world functioning over an observation period in patients with SZ [17,18,20] and in patients with MDD [49,50]. In this context, our results are only partially comparable to the available results.
It is not surprising that the main finding reported of the present study is that global real-world functioning at baseline, measured with the PSP scale, was one of the major determinants of the improvement of functioning after the follow-up period in all subgroups of patients other than BD, which confirms results of similar investigations [15,17,20]. It is rather difficult to explain why BD had a different behavior, that is, why a better functioning at baseline was not predictive of functional improvement at endpoint. We can only suggest that the dramatically unstable condition of BD with inconstant sequence of counter-polar episodes and free intervals is a serious obstacle to obtain a progressive modality of real-world functional improvement that can be predicted by initial functioning.
On the basis of literature data, the achievement of important milestones at baseline (such as having a stable work and relationship and living independently, which can be considered indices of good functioning) were found to be predictors of functioning amelioration at follow-up as well, even if in MDD and BD clusters not all milestones reached statistical significance in multiple regressions. In contrast with other studies, only Sylvia et al. [38] found that married or divorced patients with bipolar disorder experienced a worse functioning in comparison with singles or never married patients.
Other independent variables were significantly associated with functioning of patient in real-world, in particular the age of illness onset, the subjective perception of quality of life, and the type of treatments. Available data are in accordance with our findings indicating that patients with early-onset of mental illness (and thus a long-lasting disorder) have major deficits in functional outcomes [40,79,85,86,87,88,89], probably due to the fact that the onset of the disease occurs in a critical period, when specific markers of social status (housing independence, work abilities, and social relationships) and neurocognitive functions are still developing [90,91,92]. In the present study, we found a positive association between an older age of illness onset and a better functioning both in the total sample and in the subgroup of patients with BD. Literature findings are somewhat different, as this link is well established in SZ, as pointed out in a recent meta-analysis by deWinter et al. [93], while findings are controversial and received little attention in BD [94,95,96,97].
Consistent with our result showing that a better perception of quality of life by the patient was related to an improvement of real-world functioning in the whole sample of patients and in each diagnostic category, some authors found a strong relationship between patients’ functioning and quality of life, in terms of physical health status, psychological status and well-being, and interpersonal interaction [98,99]. In particular, the patients’ global life satisfaction [100], and better daily functioning were considered the main indicators of recovery and better quality of life [101,102]. Quality of life was found to be an important outcome indicator and predictor of symptomatic and functional improvement, especially in schizophrenia [102,103].
Moreover, in the total sample and in the subgroups of BD and BPD patients, the therapeutic intervention was identified as a predictor of good real-world functioning, in particular antipsychotics and mood stabilizers in the total sample and in the BPD group, and antipsychotics in the BD subsample. The importance of different kinds of therapies in recovering and returning to the premorbid functioning, or at least to a more efficient one, is well known and is supported by last years’ studies indicating the need of taking into account functional outcomes next to symptomatic ones in evaluating therapeutic effects in psychiatric disorders [55,104,105,106]. Adherence to drug therapy in the subgroup of patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia resulted as a predictor of real-world functioning change rather than the type of medication. In fact, another important finding in our investigation is the role of attitude to pharmacotherapy, evaluated through the use of DAI-10, in predicting a change in daily functioning in SZ patients: a better attitude, and thus adherence to antipsychotic treatment, produced a positive effect on real-life functioning. Previous studies performed in schizophrenia showed similar findings [20,87,107,108,109,110]. Authors observed that functional performances and community integration correlated positively with subjective satisfaction with treatment and, in particular, adherence to antipsychotic medications, while lower adherence to medications predicted a poor psychosocial functioning.
A rather surprising finding of our research is the inverse association between the use of antidepressants and real-world functioning: in fact, in the total sample and in the MDD group, the use of antidepressants was found to be a predictor of worse functioning. Even though the majority of similar studies pointed out an opposite association [104], evidence is often controversial [88,111,112] and this particular correlation has been previously described at baseline [17]. It has been hypothesized that, in patients who need such therapies, the difficulties in social and work performances may be mediated by underlying dysfunctional cognitive processes related to the disease, such as communication, interpersonal interaction, and mentalization [55], which are in addition less responsive to current first-line antidepressant therapies [49,112,113] and could be considered as an important mediator of functional impairment [49,114]. However, this finding needs to be replicated and more clearly explained in its implications.
In agreement with the available literature, we observed a great PSP change in patients with MDD and with BPD that were treated with interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT). Positive effects of psychotherapeutic interventions on real-world functioning in psychiatric disorders have been shown by several previous investigations [115,116,117,118]. Most of the evidence concerns the improvement of social functioning in depressed patients who were treated with IPT [104,119,120,121,122]. Studies focused on the functional outcomes after psychotherapy in BPD are still scarce. In fact, the majority of investigations on psychotherapies specifically designed for BPD assessed the efficacy of interventions in terms of decrease of symptom severity [123,124] or evaluated functional outcomes of combined therapies after a long period of follow-up [68,125,126]. One recent review of ten studies by Zahediabghari et al. [70] concluded that specific psychotherapeutic interventions are useful to improve psychosocial functioning in patients with this personality disorder. Impairment of real-world functioning in BPD can be also attributable to interpersonal reactivity and instability of these patients [125]. Therefore, it is not surprising that IPT, a psychotherapeutic model specifically oriented to improve interpersonal relationship, produces an overall enhancement of daily functioning in the group of BPD subjects.
Another remarkable finding of our study pointed out that patients with a higher measure of illness severity (CGI-S score), index of a more severe degree of psychiatric symptoms, and a positive psychiatric anamnesis were associated with a decline in PSP score during the observation period of usual treatment. This significant relationship was found for both factors in the total sample, for CGI-S score in the MDD and in the BPD samples, and for positive psychiatric anamnesis in the BP sample. This result can be expected, as subjects with severe psychiatric diseases and a higher level of symptoms preventing them from achieving a good psychosocial functioning, have greater difficulty in reaching and maintaining real-word milestones. In a similar way, other investigations stated a significant relationship between severity of symptom domains and functional outcome in schizophrenia and mood disorders [20,49,112,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137]. As for BPD, there is a considerable heterogeneity of results concerning relationships between PSP change and severity of global symptoms [69,138,139] that might depend on the noticeable variability of BPD symptoms producing fluctuating and unforeseeable effects on functioning in the real world.
with regards to the relationship between suicidal behaviors and everyday functioning, in our study we observed that BPD patients with a higher number of suicide attempts had a lower improvement in community functioning. A possible interpretation of this finding takes into account some evidence indicating that patients with a history of suicidal behaviors had lower abilities in domains of neurocognitive functioning [140]. Therefore, patients with reduced cognitive flexibility could have limited opportunity to improve their real-world daily-living skills.

Strengths and Limitations

The main strength is the real-world setting and real-world data collection of the study. This method presents the advantage of avoiding the selection biases of randomized controlled designs. In addition, the study was conducted in a large cohort of patients with a longitudinal follow-up.
In light of the real-world design, this study has also some limitations: (1) some demographical and clinical data were collected retrospectively, (2) we do not use psychopathological or functioning evaluation instruments specific for each diagnostic category, but the same measures for all the sample. Thus, there may be additional clinical predictors that we have not considered and that may play a role in long-term functional outcome of patients, i.e., cognitive symptoms. In light of this, it might be useful to replicate this study in single diagnostic subgroups, using clinical variables and measures of functioning specific for each subgroup, and to assess the role of cognitive dysfunctions in functional outcome.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of this analysis demonstrated that several different socio-demographic and illness-related variables contribute to patients’ functioning in a real-world setting, besides psychopathology and severity of the disease. This means that it is important to put the focus towards factors beyond clinical symptoms (i.e., quality of life, attitude to treatments, access to incentives which allow patients to achieve important milestones), that represent important contributors to patient’s achievements in daily-life functioning. Further studies are required to replicate our findings. In fact, a more accurate and reliable knowledge of predictors of functional outcome in patients with main psychiatric disorders would be of great importance to design therapeutic interventions, for example interventions of psycho-rehabilitation, targeted to obtain specific goals in functional domains and perception of quality of life.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: P.B., B.G., P.R. and S.B.; Data curation: P.B. and B.G.; Formal analysis: P.B.; Supervision: C.M. and P.R.; Writing—original draft: P.B. and B.G.; Writing—review and editing: P.B. and S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and in accordance with ethical principles for medical research involving humans. The protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee (Comitato Etico Interaziendale, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Torino), (LREC; Protocol number: 0057625-May 2015).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Our local ethics committee does not allow us to make our sets of data available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Harvey, P.D.; Velligan, D.I.; Bellack, A.S. Performance-based measures of functional skills: Usefulness in clinical treatment studies. Schizophr. Bull. 2007, 33, 1138–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Menendez-Miranda, I.; Garcia-Portilla, M.P.; Garcia-Alvarez, L.; Arrojo, M.; Sanchez, P.; Sarramea, F.; Gomar, J.; Bobes-Bascaran, M.T.; Sierra, P.; Saiz, P.A.; et al. Predictive factors of functional capacity and real-world functioning in patients with schizophrenia. Eur. Psychiatry 2015, 30, 622–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bechi, M.; Bosia, M.; Spangaro, M.; Buonocore, M.; Cavedoni, S.; Agostoni, G.; Bianchi, L.; Cocchi, F.; Guglielmino, C.; Smeraldi, E.; et al. Exploring functioning in schizophrenia: Predictors of functional capacity and real-world behaviour. Psychiatry Res. 2017, 251, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gupta, M.; Bassett, E.; Iftene, F.; Bowie, C.R. Functional outcomes in schizophrenia: Understanding the competence-performance discrepancy. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2012, 46, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Galderisi, S.; Rossi, A.; Rocca, P.; Bertolino, A.; Mucci, A.; Bucci, P.; Rucci, P.; Gibertoni, D.; Aguglia, E.; Amore, M.; et al. Italian Network For Research on Psychoses. The influence of illness-related variables, personal resources and context-related factors on real-life functioning of people with schizophrenia. World Psychiatry 2014, 13, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Yang, Z.; Lee, S.H.; Abdul Rashid, N.A.; See, Y.M.; Dauwels, J.; Tan, B.L.; Lee, J. Predicting Real-World Functioning in Schizophrenia: The Relative Contributions of Neurocognition, Functional Capacity, and Negative Symptoms. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 639536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cardenas, V.; Abel, S.; Bowie, C.R.; Tiznado, D.; Depp, C.A.; Patterson, T.L.; Jeste, D.V.; Mausbach, B.T. When functional capacity and real-world functioning converge: The role of self-efficacy. Schizophr. Bull. 2013, 39, 908–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Harvey, P.D. Assessment of everyday functioning in schizophrenia: Implications for treatments aimed at negative symptoms. Schizophr. Res. 2013, 150, 353–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Robertson, B.R.; Prestia, D.; Twamley, E.W.; Patterson, T.L.; Bowie, C.R.; Harvey, P.D. Social competence versus negative symptoms as predictors of real world social functioning in schizophrenia. Schizophr. Res. 2014, 160, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Fleischhacker, W.W.; Arango, C.; Arteel, P.; Barnes, T.R.; Carpenter, W.; Duckworth, K.; Galderisi, S.; Halpern, L.; Knapp, M.; Marder, S.R.; et al. Schizophrenia—Time to commit to policy change. Schizophr. Bull. 2014, 40 (Suppl. 3), S165–S194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Giuliani, L.; Giordano, G.M.; Bucci, P.; Pezzella, P.; Brando, F.; Galderisi, S. Improving Knowledge on Pathways to Functional Outcome in Schizophrenia: Main Results from the Italian Network for Research on Psychoses. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 791117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Harvey, P.D.; Strassnig, M. Predicting the severity of everyday functional disability in people with schizophrenia: Cognitive deficits, functional capacity, symptoms, and health status. World Psychiatry 2012, 11, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Olsson, A.K.; Hjärthag, F.; Helldin, L. Predicting real-world functional milestones in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2016, 30, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rocca, P.; Montemagni, C.; Mingrone, C.; Crivelli, B.; Sigaudo, M.; Bogetto, F. A cluster-analytical approach toward real- world outcome in outpatients with stable schizophrenia. Eur. Psychiatry 2016, 32, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. García-Portilla, M.P.; García-Álvarez, L.; González-Blanco, L.; Dal Santo, F.; Bobes-Bascarán, T.; Martínez-Cao, C.; García-Fernández, A.; Sáiz, P.A.; Bobes, J. Real-World Functioning in Patients with Schizophrenia: Beyond Negative and Cognitive Symptoms. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 700–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bosia, M.; Bechi, M.; Bosinelli, F.; Politi, E.; Buonocore, M.; Spangaro, M.; Bianchi, L.; Cocchi, F.; Guglielmino, C.; Cavallaro, R. From cognitive and clinical substrates to functional profiles: Disentangling heterogeneity in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2019, 271, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Gonzalez-Blanco, L.; Garcia-Portilla, M.P.; Dal Santo, F.; Garcia-Alvarez, L.; de la Fuente-Tomas, L.; Menendez-Miranda, I.; Bobes-Bascaran, T.; Saiz, P.A.; Bobes, J. Predicting real-world functioning in outpatients with schizophrenia: Role of inflammation and psychopathology. Psychiatry Res. 2019, 280, 112509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mucci, A.; Galderisi, S.; Gibertoni, D.; Rossi, A.; Rocca, P.; Bertolino, A.; Aguglia, E.; Amore, M.; Bellomo, A.; Biondi, M.; et al. Factors Associated with Real-Life Functioning in Persons with Schizophrenia in a 4-Year Follow-up Study of the Italian Network for Research on Psychoses. JAMA Psychiatry 2021, 78, 550–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Okada, H.; Hirano, D.; Taniguchi, T. Impact of Negative Symptom Domains and Other Clinical Characteristics on Functional Outcomes in Patients with Schizophrenia. Schizophr. Res. Treat. 2021, 2021, 8864352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Vauth, R.; Carpiniello, B.; Turczyński, J.; Ivanov, M.; Cherubin, P.; Lahaye, M.; Schreiner, A. Relationship between clinical outcomes measures and personal and social performance functioning in a prospective, interventional study in schizophrenia. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. 2021, 30, e1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Davies, G.; Greenwood, K. A meta-analytic review of the relationship between neurocognition, metacognition and functional outcome in schizophrenia. J. Ment. Health 2020, 29, 496–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Najas-Garcia, A.; Gómez-Benito, J.; Huedo-Medina, T.B. The Relationship of Motivation and Neurocognition with Functionality in Schizophrenia: A Meta-analytic Review. Community Ment. Health J. 2018, 54, 1019–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kharawala, S.; Hastedt, C.; Podhorna, J.; Shukla, H.; Kappelhoff, B.; Harvey, P.D. The relationship between cognition and functioning in schizophrenia: A semi-systematic review. Schizophr. Res. Cogn. 2021, 27, 100217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hirschfeld, R.M.; Lewis, L.; Vornik, L.A. Perceptions and impact of bipolar disorder: How far have we really come? Results of the national depressive and manic-depressive association 2000 survey of individuals with bipolar disorder. J. Clin. Psychiatry 2003, 64, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Dean, B.B.; Gerner, D.; Gerner, R.H. A systematic review evaluating health-related quality of life, work impairment, and healthcare costs and utilization in bipolar disorder. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2004, 20, 139–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Michalak, E.E.; Yatham, L.N.; Lam, R.W. Quality of life in bipolar disorder: A review of the literature. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2005, 3, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Baune, B.T.; Malhi, G.S. A review on the impact of cognitive dysfunction on social, occupational, and general functional outcomes in bipolar disorder. Bipolar. Disord. 2015, 17 (Suppl. 2), 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lewandowski, K.E.; Cohen, T.R.; Ongur, D. Cognitive and clinical predictors of community functioning across the psychoses. Psych. J. 2020, 9, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tse, S.; Chan, S.; Ng, K.L.; Yatham, L.N. Meta-analysis of predictors of favorable employment outcomes among individuals with bipolar disorder. Bipola. Disord. 2014, 16, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Duarte, W.; Becerra, R.; Cruise, K. The Relationship Between Neurocognitive Functioning and Occupational Functioning in Bipolar Disorder: A Literature Review. Eur. J. Psychol. 2016, 12, 659–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Gitlin, M.J.; Miklowitz, D.J. The difficult lives of individuals with bipolar disorder: A review of functional outcomes and their implications for treatment. J. Affect. Disord. 2017, 209, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bonnín, C.; Reinares, M.; Martínez-Arán, A.; Jiménez, E.; Sánchez-Moreno, J.; Solé, B.; Montejo, L.; Vieta, E. Improving Functioning, Quality of Life, and Well-being in Patients with Bipolar Disorder. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2019, 22, 467–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chen, M.; Fitzgerald, H.M.; Madera, J.J.; Tohen, M. Functional outcome assessment in bipolar disorder: A systematic literature review. Bipolar. Disord. 2019, 21, 194–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Depp, C.A.; Mausbach, B.T.; Harmell, A.L.; Savla, G.N.; Bowie, C.R.; Harvey, P.D.; Patterson, T.L. Meta-analysis of the association between cognitive abilities and everyday functioning in bipolar disorder. Bipola. Disord. 2012, 14, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Henry, B.L.; Minassian, A.; Perry, W. Everyday functional ability across different phases of bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2013, 210, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Hower, H.; Lee, E.J.; Jones, R.N.; Birmaher, B.; Strober, M.; Goldstein, B.I.; Merranko, J.; Keller, M.B.; Goldstein, T.R.; Weinstock, L.M.; et al. Predictors of longitudinal psychosocial functioning in bipolar youth transitioning to adults. J. Affect. Disord. 2019, 246, 578–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Peters, A.T.; Peckham, A.D.; Stange, J.P.; Sylvia, L.G.; Hansen, N.S.; Salcedo, S.; Rauch, S.L.; Nierenberg, A.A.; Dougherty, D.D.; Deckersbach, T. Correlates of real world executive dysfunction in bipolar I disorder. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2014, 53, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Sylvia, L.G.; Montana, R.E.; Deckersbach, T.; Thase, M.E.; Tohen, M.; Reilly-Harrington, N.; McInnis, M.G.; Kocsis, J.H.; Bowden, C.; Calabrese, J.; et al. Poor quality of life and functioning in bipolar disorder. Int. J. Bipolar. Disord. 2017, 5, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Nitzburg, G.C.; Russo, M.; Cuesta-Diaz, A.; Ospina, L.; Shanahan, M.; Perez-Rodriguez, M.; McGrath, M.; Burdick, K.E. Coping strategies and real-world functioning in bip.polar disorder. J. Affect. Disord. 2016, 198, 185–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Murru, A.; Pacchiarotti, I.; Verdolini, N.; Reinares, M.; Torrent, C.; Geoffroy, P.A.; Bellivier, F.; Llorca, P.M.; Vieta, E.; Samalin, L. Modifiable and non-modifiable factors associated with functional impairment during the inter-episodic periods of bipolar disorder. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2018, 268, 749–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Grunze, H.; Born, C. The Impact of Subsyndromal Bipolar Symptoms on Patient’s Functionality and Quality of Life. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ospina, L.H.; Nitzburg, G.C.; Shanahan, M.; Perez-Rodriguez, M.M.; Larsen, E.; Latifoglu, A.; Burdick, K.E. Social cognition moderates the relationship between neurocognition and community functioning in bipolar disorder. J. Affect. Disord 2018, 235, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Bellani, M.; Biagianti, B.; Zovetti, N.; Rossetti, M.G.; Bressi, C.; Perlini, C.; Brambilla, P. The effects of cognitive remediation on cognitive abilities and real-world functioning among people with bipolar disorder: A systematic review: Special Section on “Translational and Neuroscience Studies in Affective Disorders”. Section Editor, Maria Nobile MD, PhD. This Section of JAD focuses on the relevance of translational and neuroscience studies in providing a better understanding of the neural basis of affective disorders. The main aim is to briefly summaries relevant research findings in clinical neuroscience with particular regards to specific innovative topics in mood and anxiety disorders. J. Affect. Disord. 2019, 257, 691–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lomastro, M.J.; Valerio, M.P.; Blasco, M.B.; Tagni, M.F.; Martino, D.J. Predictors of High Psychosocial Functioning in Bipolar Disorder. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 2020, 208, 904–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. World Health Organization. Depression and Other Common Mental Disorders: Global Health Estimates. Geneva 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/254610 (accessed on 1 May 2022).
  46. Moore, D.J.; Palmer, B.W.; Patterson, T.L.; Jeste, D.V. A review of performance-based measures of everyday functioning. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2007, 41, 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Milanovic, M.; Ayukawa, E.; Usyatynsky, A.; Holshausen, K.; Bowie, C.R. Self Efficacy in Depression: Bridging the Gap between Competence and Real World Functioning. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 2018, 206, 350–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Langlieb, A.M.; Guico-Pabia, C.J. Beyond symptomatic improvement: Assessing real- world outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder. Prim. Care Companion J. Clin. Psychiatry 2010, 12, 26705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hammer-Helmich, L.; Haro, J.M.; Jönsson, B.; Tanguy Melac, A.; Di Nicola, S.; Chollet, J.; Milea, D.; Rive, B.; Saragoussi, D. Functional impairment in patients with major depressive disorder: The 2-year PERFORM study. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2018, 14, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Haro, J.M.; Hammer-Helmich, L.; Saragoussi, D.; Ettrup, A.; Larsen, K.G. Patient-reported depression severity and cognitive symptoms as determinants of functioning in patients with major depressive disorder: A secondary analysis of the 2-year prospective PERFORM study. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2019, 15, 2313–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Wang, P.S.; Beck, A.L.; Berglund, P.; McKenas, D.K.; Pronk, N.P.; Simon, G.E.; Kessler, R.C. Effects of major depression on moment-in-time work performance. Am. J. Psychiatry 2004, 161, 1885–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kessler, R.C.; Akiskal, H.S.; Ames, M.; Birnbaum, H.; Greenberg, P.; Hirschfeld, R.M.; Jin, R.; Merikangas, K.R.; Simon, G.E.; Wang, P.S. Prevalence and effects of mood disorders on work performance in a nationally representative sample of US workers. Am. J. Psychiatry 2006, 163, 1561–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Cambridge, O.R.; Knight, M.J.; Mills, N.; Baune, B.T. The clinical relationship between cognitive impairment and psychosocial functioning in major depressive disorder: A systematic review. Psychiatry Res. 2018, 269, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Evans, V.C.; Iverson, G.L.; Yatham, L.N.; Lam, R.W. The relationship between neurocognitive and psychosocial functioning in major depressive disorder: A systematic review. J. Clin. Psychiatry 2014, 75, 1359–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Weightman, M.J.; Knight, M.J.; Baune, B.T. A systematic review of the impact of social cognitive deficits on psychosocial functioning in major depressive disorder and opportunities for therapeutic intervention. Psychiatry Res. 2019, 274, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sumiyoshi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Noto, S.; Sakamoto, S.; Moriguchi, Y.; Tan, K.H.X.; Hammer-Helmich, L.; Fernandez, J. Relationship of cognitive impairment with depressive symptoms and psychosocial function in patients with major depressive disorder: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from PERFORM-J. J. Affect. Disord. 2019, 258, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sumiyoshi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Noto, S.; Sakamoto, S.; Moriguchi, Y.; Hammer-Helmich, L.; Fernandez, J. Relationship of Subjective Cognitive Impairment with Psychosocial Function and Relapse of Depressive Symptoms in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder: Analysis of Longitudinal Data from PERFORM-J. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2021, 17, 945–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Dhillon, S.; Videla-Nash, G.; Foussias, G.; Segal, Z.V.; Zakzanis, K.K. On the nature of objective and perceived cognitive impairments in depressive symptoms and real-world functioning in young adults. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 287, 112932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Castellano, S.; Torrent, C.; Petralia, M.C.; Godos, J.; Cantarella, R.A.; Ventimiglia, A.; De Vivo, S.; Platania, S.; Guarnera, M.; Pirrone, C.; et al. Clinical and Neurocognitive Predictors of Functional Outcome in Depressed Patients with Partial Response to Treatment: One Year Follow-Up Study. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2020, 16, 589–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Zanarini, M.C.; Frankenburg, F.R.; Reich, D.B.; Fitzmaurice, G. The 10-year course of psychosocial functioning among patients with borderline personality disorder and axis II comparison subjects. Acta Psychiatr. Scanda. 2010, 122, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Alvarez-Tomás, I.; Soler, J.; Bados, A.; Martín-Blanco, A.; Elices, M.; Carmona, C.; Bauzà, J.; Pascual, J.C. Long-Term Course of Borderline Personality Disorder: A Prospective 10-Year Follow-Up Study. J. Pers. Disord. 2016, 17, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Biskin, R.S. The lifetime course of borderline personality disorder. Can. J. Psychiatry 2015, 60, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Paris, J. Implications of long-term outcome research for the management of patients with borderline personality disorder. Harv. Rev. Psychiatry 2002, 10, 315–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ng, F.Y.Y.; Bourke, M.E.; Grenyer, B.F.S. Recovery from borderline personality disorder: A systematic review of the perspectives of consumers, clinicians, family and carers. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0160515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Winsper, C.; Marwaha, S.; Lereya, S.T.; Thompson, A.; Eyden, J.; Singh, S.P. Clinical and psychosocial outcomes of borderline personality disorder in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review. Psychol. Med. 2015, 45, 2237–2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Winsper, C. Borderline personality disorder: Course and outcomes across the lifespan. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 37, 94–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Javaras, K.N.; Zanarini, M.C.; Hudson, J.I.; Greenfield, S.F.; Gunderson, J.G. Functional outcomes in community-based adults with borderline personality disorder. J. Psychiatr Res. 2017, 89, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Álvarez-Tomás, I.; Ruiz, J.; Guilera, G.; Bados, A. Long-term clinical and functional course of borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur. Psychiatry 2019, 56, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Juurlink, T.T.; Lamers, F.; van Marle, H.J.F.; Anema, J.R.; Beekman, A.T.F. The role of borderline personality disorder symptoms on absenteeism & work performance in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). BMC Psychiatry 2020, 20, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zahediabghari, S.; Boursiquot, P.; Links, P. Impact of Psychotherapy on Psychosocial Functioning in Borderline Personality Disorder Patients. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Skodol, A.E.; Gunderson, J.G.; McGlashan, T.H.; Dyck, I.R.; Stout, R.L.; Bender, D.S.; Grilo, C.M.; Shea, M.T.; Zanarini, M.C.; Morey, L.C.; et al. Functional impairment in patients with schizotypal, borderline, avoidant, or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Am. J. Psychiatry 2002, 159, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. First, M.B.; Williams, J.B.; Karg, R.S.; Spitzer, R.L. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders: SCID-5-CV Clinician Version; American Psychiatric Association Publishing: Arlington, TX, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  73. First, M.; Williams, J.; Benjamin, L. SCID-5-PD: Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Personality Disorders; American Psychiatric Association Publishing: Arlington, TX, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  74. International Society of Interpersonal Psychotherapy—Is IPT. Available online: https://interpersonalpsychotherapy.org/ (accessed on 15 January 2022).
  75. Bellino, S.; Bozzatello, P. Interpersonal Psychotherapy Adapted for Borderline Personality Disorder (IPT-BPD): A Review of Available Data and a Proposal of Revision. J. Psychol. Psychotherapy 2016, 5, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Guy, W. Clinical global impression (C.G.I.). In Ecdeu Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology; US Dept Health, Education, and Welfare publication (ADM 76-338); National Institute of Mental Health: Rockville, MD, USA, 1967; pp. 218–222. [Google Scholar]
  77. Rossi, A.; Arduini, L.; De Cataldo, S.; Stratta, P. Subjective response to neuroleptic medication: A validation study of the Italian version of the Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI). Epidemiol. Psichiatr. Soc. 2001, 10, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Majani, G.; Callegari, S. SAT-P Satisfaction Profile. Soddisfazione Soggettiva e Qualità Della Vita; Erickson: Trento, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  79. Puig, O.; Penadés, R.; Baeza, I.; De la Serna, E.; Sánchez-Gistau, V.; Lázaro, L.; Bernardo, M.; Castro-Fornieles, J. Assessment of real-world daily-living skills in early-onset schizophrenia trough the Life Skills Profile scale. Schizophr. Res. 2013, 145, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Voruganti, L.; Heslegrave, R.; Awad, A.G. Quality of life measurement in schizophrenia: Reconciling the quest for subjectivity with the question of reliability. Psychol. Med. 1998, 28, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Morosini, P.L.; Magliano, L.; Brambilla, L.; Ugolini, S.; Pioli, R. Development, reliability and acceptability of a new version of the DSM-IV Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) to assess routine social functioning. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 2000, 101, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Goldman, H.H.; Skodol, A.E.; Lave, T.R. Revising Axis V for DSM-IV: A review of measures of social functioning. Am. J. Psychiatry 1992, 149, 1148–1156. [Google Scholar]
  83. Rocca, P.; Montemagni, C.; Castagna, F.; Giugiario, M.; Scalese, M.; Bogetto, F. Relative contribution of antipsychotics, negative symptoms and executive functions to social functioning in stable schizophrenia. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatr. 2009, 33, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Velthorst, E.; Fett, A.J.; Reichenberg, A.; Perlman, G.; van Os, J.; Bromet, E.J.; Kotov, R.T. The 20-Year Longitudinal Trajectories of Social Functioning in Individuals with Psychotic Disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry 2016, 174, 1075–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Suttajit, S.; Arunpongpaisal, S.; Srisurapanont, M.; Thavichachart, N.; Kongsakon, R.; Chantakarn, S.; Chantarasak, V.; Jariyavilas, A.; Jaroensook, P.; Kittiwattanagul, K.; et al. Psychosocial functioning in schizophrenia: Are some symptoms or demographic characteristics predictors across the functioning domains? Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2015, 11, 2471–2477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Rossi, A.; Galderisi, S.; Rocca, P.; Bertolino, A.; Mucci, A.; Rucci, P.; Gibertoni, D.; Aguglia, E.; Amore, M.; Andriola, I.; et al. Italian Network for Research on Psychoses. The relationships of personal resources with symptom severity and psychosocial functioning in persons with schizophrenia: Results from the Italian Network for Research on Psychoses study. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2017, 267, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Vita, A.; Barlati, S. Recovery from schizophrenia: Is it possible? Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2018, 31, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Trivedi, M.H.; Morris, D.W.; Wisniewski, S.R.; Lesser, I.; Nierenberg, A.A.; Daly, E.; Kurian, B.T.; Gaynes, B.N.; Balasubramani, G.K.; Rush, A.J. Increase in work productivity of depressed individuals with improvement in depressive symptom severity. Am. J. Psychiatry 2013, 170, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Lagerveld, S.E.; Bültmann, U.; Franche, R.L.; van Dijk, F.J.H.; Vlasveld, M.C.; van der Feltz-Cornelis, C.M.; Bruinvels, D.J.; Huijs, J.J.J.M.; Blonk, R.W.B.; van der Klink, J.J.L.; et al. Factors associated with work participation and work functioning in depressed workers: A systematic review. J. Occup. Rehabil. 2010, 20, 275–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Lay, B.; Blanz, B.; Hartmann, M.; Schmidt, M.H. The psychosocial outcome of adolescent- onset schizophrenia: A 12-year follow up. Schizophr. Bull. 2000, 26, 801–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Oie, M.; Sundet, K.; Ueland, T. Neurocognition and functional outcome in early-onset schizophrenia and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A 13-year follow-up. Neuropsychology 2011, 25, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Levy, B.; Manove, E. Functional outcome in bipolar disorder: The big picture. Depress. Res. Treat. 2012, 2012, 949248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. De Winter, L.; Couwenbergh, C.; van Weeghel, J.; Hasson-Ohayon, I.; Vermeulen, J.M.; Mulder, C.L.; Boonstra, N.; Klaver, K.M.; Oud, M.; de Haan, L.; et al. Changes in social functioning over the course of psychotic disorders—A meta-analysis. Schizophr. Res. 2022, 239, 55–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Carlson, G.A.; Kotin, J.; Davenport, Y.B.; Adland, M. Follow-up of 53 bipolar manic-depressive patients. Br. J. Psychiatry 1974, 124, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Martinez-Aran, A.; Vieta, E.; Torrent, C. Functional outcome in bipolar disorder: The role of clinical and cognitive factors. Bipolar. Disord. 2007, 9, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Perlis, R.H.; Dennehy, E.B.; Miklowitz, D.J.; DelBello, M.P.; Ostacher, M.; Calabrese, J.R. Retrospective age at onset of bipolar disorder and outcome during two-year follow-up: Results from the STEP-BD study. Bipolar. Disord. 2009, 11, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Bennett, F.; Hodgetts, S.; Close, A.; Frye, M.; Grunze, H.; Keck, P.; Kupka, R.; McElroy, S.; Nolen, W.; Post, R.; et al. Predictors of psychosocial outcome of bipolar disorder: Data from the Stanley Foundation Bipolar Network. Int. J. Bipolar. Disord. 2019, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Karadayı, G.; Emiroğlu, B.; Üçok, A. Relationship of symptomatic remission with quality of life and functionality in patients with schizophrenia. Compr. Psychiatry 2011, 52, 701–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Kokacya, M.H.; Virit, O.; Copoglu, U.S. Symptomatic Remission Determines Functional Improvement and Quality of Life in Schizophrenia. Noro Psikiyatr. Ars. 2016, 53, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Edmondson, M.; Pahwa, R.; Lee, K.K. A dual change model of life satisfaction and functioning for individuals with schizophrenia. Schizophr. Res. 2012, 139, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  101. Charzyńska, K.; Kucharska, K.; Mortimer, A. Does employment promote the process of recovery from schizophrenia? A review of the existing evidence. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2015, 28, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Nevarez-Flores, A.G.; Sanderson, K.; Breslin, M.; Carr, V.J.; Morgan, V.A.; Neil, A.L. Systematic review of global functioning and quality of life in people with psychotic disorders. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2019, 28, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Cohen, C.; Vengassery, A.; Garcia Aracena, E.F. A Longitudinal Analysis of Quality of Life and Associated Factors in Older Adults with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2017, 25, 755–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kupferberg, A.; Bicks, L.; Hasler, G. Social functioning in major depressive disorder. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2016, 69, 313–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Videler, A.C.; Hutsebaut, J.; Schulkens, J.E.M.; Sobczak, S.; van Alphen, S.P.J. A Life Span Perspective on Borderline Personality Disorder. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2019, 21, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Bech, P. Social Functioning. CNS Drugs 2005, 19, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hassan, G.A.; Taha, G.R. Long term functioning in early onset psychosis: Two years prospective follow-up study. Behav. Brain Funct. 2011, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Iasevoli, F.; Giordano, S.; Balletta, R. Treatment resistant schizophrenia is associated with the worst community functioning among severely-ill highly- disabling psychiatric conditions and is the most relevant predictor of poorer achievements in functional milestones. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2014, 65, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Mohr, P.; Rodriguez, M.; Bravermanová, A. Social and functional capacity of schizophrenia patients: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2014, 60, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Bernardo, M.; Cañas, F.; Herrera, B.; García Dorado, M. Adherence predicts symptomatic and psychosocial remission in schizophrenia: Naturalistic study of patient integration in the community. Rev. Psiquiatr. Salud. Ment. 2017, 10, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Beck, A.; Crain, A.L.; Solberg, L.I.; Unützer, J.; Glasgow, R.E.; Maciosek, M.V.; Whitebird, R. Severity of depression and magnitude of productivity loss. Ann. Fam. Med. 2011, 9, 305–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Lee, Y.; Rosenblat, J.D.; Lee, J.; Carmona, N.E.; Subramaniapillai, M.; Shekotikhina, M.; Mansur, R.B.; Brietzke, E.; Lee, J.H.; Ho, R.C.; et al. Efficacy of antidepressants on measures of workplace functioning in major depressive disorder: A systematic review. J. Affect. Disord. 2018, 227, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Rosenblat, J.D.; Kakar, R.; McIntyre, R.S. The cognitive effects of antidepressants in major depressive disorder: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis of randomized clinical trials. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2015, 19, pyv082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Woo, Y.S.; Rosenblat, J.D.; Kakar, R.; Bahk, W.M.; McIntyre, R.S. Cogni¬tive deficits as a mediator of poor occupational function in remitted major depressive disorder patients. Clin. Psychopharmacol. Neurosci. 2016, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Gamble, S.A.; Smith, P.N.; Poleshuck, E.L. Domain-specific social functioning improvements during treatment of depressed women with histories of childhood sexual abuse. J. Affect. Disord. 2011, 130, 478–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. Pascual, J.C.; Palomares, N.; Ibáñez, Á. Efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation on psychosocial functioning in Borderline Personality Disorder: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 2015, 21, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Young, S.; Emilsson, B.; Sigurdsson, J.F. A randomized controlled trial reporting functional outcomes of cognitive- behavioural therapy in medication- treated adults with ADHD and comorbid psychopathology. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2017, 267, 267–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  118. Driessen, E.; Van, H.L.; Peen, J. Cognitive- behavioral versus psychodynamic therapy for major depression: Secondary outcomes of a randomized clinical trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2017, 85, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Brakemeier, E.L.; Frase, L. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) in major depressive disorder. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 2012, 262, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Spence, S.H.; O’shea, G.; Donovan, C.L. Improvements in interpersonalfunctioning following interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) with adolescents andtheir association with change in depression. Behav. Cogn. Psychother. 2016, 44, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Lemmens, L.H.J.; Galindo-Garre, F.; Arntz, A. Exploring mechanisms of change in cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for adult depression. Behav. Res. Ther. 2017, 94, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Renner, F.; Cuijpers, P.; Huibers, M.J.H. The effect of psychotherapy fordepression on improvements in social functioning: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Med. 2014, 44, 2913–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Stoffers, J.M.; Völlm, B.A.; Rücker, G. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012, 15, CD005652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Links, P.S.; Shah, R.; Eynan, R. Psychotherapy for Borderline Personality Disorder: Progress and Remaining Challenges. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2017, 19, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Sinnaeve, R.; van den Bosch, L.M.; van Steenbergen-Weijenburg, K.M. Change in interpersonal functioning during psychological interventions for borderline personality disorder—A systematic review of measures and efficacy. Pers. Ment. Health 2015, 9, 173–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Cristea, I.A.; Gentili, C.; Cotet, C.D.; Palomba, D.; Barbui, C.; Cuijpers, P. Efficacy of psychotherapies for borderline personality disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2017, 74, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Adler, D.A.; McLaughlin, T.J.; Rogers, W.H.; Chang, H.; Lapitsky, L.; Lerner, D. Job performance deficits due to depression. Am. J. Psychiatry 2006, 163, 1569–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Bowie, C.R.; Reichenberg, A.; Patterson, T.L. Determinants of real-world functional performance in schizophrenia subjects: Correlations with cognition, functional capacity, and symptoms. Am. J. Psychiatry 2006, 163, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Bowie, C.R.; Twamley, E.W.; Anderson, H. Self-assessment of functional status in schizophrenia. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2007, 41, 1012–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  130. Bowie, C.R.; Depp, C.; McGrath, J.A. Prediction of real-world functional disability in chronic mental disorders: A comparison of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Am. J. Psychiatry 2010, 167, 1116–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Leifker, F.R.; Bowie, C.R.; Harvey, P.D. Determinants of everyday outcomes in schizophrenia: The influences of cognitive impairment, functional capacity, and symptoms. Schizophr. Res. 2009, 115, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Stefanopoulou, E.; Lafuente, A.R.; Saez Fonseca, J.A.; Huxley, A. Insight, global functioning and psychopathology amongst in-patient clients with schizophrenia. Psychiatr. Q. 2009, 80, 155–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Iosifescu, D.V. The relation between mood, cognition and psychosocial functioning in psychiatric disorders. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2012, 22 (Suppl. 3), S499–S504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Galderisi, S.; Bucci, P.; Mucci, A. Categorical and dimensional approaches to negative symptoms of schizophrenia: Focus on long- term stability and functional outcome. Schizophr. Res. 2013, 147, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Van der Voort, T.Y.; Seldenrijk, A.; van Meijel, B. Functional versus syndromal recovery in patients with major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. J. Clin. Psychiatry 2015, 76, 809–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Tan, E.J.; Rossell, S.L. Comparing how co-morbid depression affects individual domains of functioning and life satisfaction in schizophrenia. Compr. Psychiatry 2016, 66, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Vancampfort, D.; Stubbs, B.; Sienaert, P. Depressive symptoms and muscular fitness contribute independently to the ability to perform daily life activities in people with bipolar disorder. Nord. J. Psychiatry 2016, 70, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  138. Korkeila, J.; Oksanen, T.; Virtanen, M.; Salo, P.; Nabi, H.; Pentti, J.; Vahtera, J.; Kivimäki, M. Early retirement from work among employees with a diagnosis of personality disorder compared to anxiety and depressive disorders. Eur. Psychiatry 2011, 26, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. De Graaf, R.; Tuithof, M.; Van Dorsselaer, S.; Ten Have, M. Comparing the effects on work performance of mental and physical disorders. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2012, 47, 1873–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Saffer, B.Y.; Klonsky, E.D. The Relationship of Self- reported Executive Functioning to Suicide Ideation and Attempts: Findings from a Large U.S.-based Online Sample. Arch. Suicide Res. 2016, 20, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Demographic and clinical variables in the total group of outpatients and in the subgroups: with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, or major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder, and or borderline personality disorder.
Table 1. Demographic and clinical variables in the total group of outpatients and in the subgroups: with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, or major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder, and or borderline personality disorder.
VariablesTotal Sample
n = 1019		SZ
n = 183		MDD
n = 432		BP
n = 219		BPD
n = 185
Age, mean ± SD51.01 ± 15.3245.64 ± 14.9254.22 ± 15.6753.71 ± 14.1142.52 ± 16.38
Age at onset, mean ± SD39.58 ± 19.0327.93 ± 9.6143.95 ± 17.2244.02 ± 24.8231.21 ± 17.09
Illness duration, mean ± SD12.21 ± 11.9316.72 ± 12.1111.41 ± 12.9812.68 ± 10.779.12 ± 9.98
Education, mean ± SD11.12 ± 4.2110.82 ± 3.6111.01 ± 4.3410.79 ± 4.3212.45 ± 4.19
CGI-S, mean ± SD4.23 ± 1.015.14 ± 0.793.56 ± 0.584.28 ± 0.925.04 ± 0.67
SAT-P, mean ± SD61.11 ± 17.5159.66 ± 18.8767.67 ± 17.4151.42 ± 16.2548.34 ± 10.21
DAI-10, mean ± SD2.01 ± 3.522.99 ± 4.224.31 ± 1.39−1.14 ± 2.37−2.61 ± 2.38
PSP, mean ± SD64.32 ± 10.7557.94 ± 10.5765.89 ± 9.6266.44 ± 11.6165.05 ± 11.86
Male gender, n (%)376 (36.90)78 (42.72)154 (35.65)70 (31.96)74 (40)
Positive psychiatric anamnesis, n (%)782 (76.74)160 (87.43)330 (76.39)158 (72.15)134 (72.43)
Suicidal attempts, n (%)78 (7.65)8 (4.37)34 (7.87)14 (6.39)22 (11.89)
Employment, n (%)506 (49.65)52 (28.41)252 (58.33)118 (53.88)84 (45.40)
Stable relationship, n (%)493 (48.38)74 (40.44)244 (56.48)94 (42.92)81 (43.78)
Independent living, n (%)783 (76.84)86 (46.99)416 (96.30)156 (71.23)125 (67.57)
Antipsychotics, n (%)346 (33.95)183 (100)22 (5.09)60 (27.40)81 (43.78)
Mood stabilizers, n (%)331 (32.48)19 (10.38)18 (4.17)174 (74.45)120 (64.86)
Antidepressants, n (%)537 (52.70)33 (18.03)426 (98.61)62 (28.31)16 (8.65)
Psychotherapy, n (%)326 (32.00)--228 (52.78)--98 (52.97)
Diagnosis of SZ, n (%)183 (17.96)--------
Diagnosis of MDD, n (%)432 (42.39)--------
Diagnosis of BD, n (%)219 (21.49)--------
Diagnosis of BPD, n (%)185 (18.15)--------
SD = standard deviation; n = number; SZ = Schizophrenia; MDD = Major Depressive Disorder; BP = Bipolar Disorder; BPD = Borderline Personality Disorder; DAI-10 = Drug Attitude Inventory-10; CGI-S = Clinical Global Impression-Severity; SAT-P = Satisfaction Profile; PSP = Personal and Social Performance.
Table
Table 2. Multiple regression analysis in the total group and in the subgroups with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, or major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder, or borderline personality disorder. Dependent variable ΔPSP. * p ≤ 0.05 ; ** p ≤ 0.01.
Table 2. Multiple regression analysis in the total group and in the subgroups with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, or major depressive disorder, or bipolar disorder, or borderline personality disorder. Dependent variable ΔPSP. * p ≤ 0.05 ; ** p ≤ 0.01.
VariablesTotal Sample
Bst/SE		SZ
Bst/SE		MDD
Bst/SE		BD
Bst/SE		BPD
Bst/SE
Age at illness onset0.08 **0.01--------0.12 **0.02----
Positive psychiatric anamnesis−0.05 **0.45--------−0.14 **1.33----
Suicidal attempts----------------−0.11 **0.78
Antipsychotics0.12 **0.42--------0.11 *0.880.10 *0.65
Mood stabilizers0.20 **0.48------------0.15 **0.69
Antidepressants−0.07 *0.44----−0.09 **0.98--------
Psychotherapy0.13 **0.35----0.17 **0.40----0.16 *0.96
PSP T00.30 **0.020.30 **0.030.28 **0.03----0.52 **0.04
CGI-S−0.15 **0.25----−0.08 **0.35----−0.21 **0.49
DAI-10----0.45 **0.05------------
SAT-P0.45 **0.010.21 **0.010.52 **0.010.37 **0.040.28 **0.03
Employment0.25 **0.340.12 **0.440.14 **0.430.22 **1.230.48 **0.63
Stable relationship0.13 **0.330.16 **0.400.15 **0.400.26 **1.110.25 **0.63
Independent living status0.12 **0.420.30 **0.48--------0.13 **0.70
SZ = Schizophrenia; MDD = Major Depressive Disorder; BP = Bipolar Disorder; BPD = Borderline Personality Disorder; DAI-10 = Drug Attitude Inventory-10; CGI–S = Clinical Global Impression–Severity; SAT-P = Satisfaction Profile; PSP = Personal and Social Performance; SE = Standard Error.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bozzatello, P.; Giordano, B.; Montemagni, C.; Rocca, P.; Bellino, S. Real-World Functioning in Psychiatric Outpatients: Predictive Factors. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4400. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm11154400

AMA Style

Bozzatello P, Giordano B, Montemagni C, Rocca P, Bellino S. Real-World Functioning in Psychiatric Outpatients: Predictive Factors. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(15):4400. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm11154400

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bozzatello, Paola, Benedetta Giordano, Cristiana Montemagni, Paola Rocca, and Silvio Bellino. 2022. "Real-World Functioning in Psychiatric Outpatients: Predictive Factors" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 15: 4400. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm11154400

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop