Purpose
Recovery in people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) remains a major issue. When risk factors are studied in relation to the disorder, potential protective factors should also be considered ...since they can modulate this relationship. This study is aimed at exploring which premorbid and baseline characteristics are associated with a good and poor global recovery in patients with FEP at 3-year follow-up.
Methods
We categorized patients’ outcome by using a Latent Class Analysis (LCA) considering a multimodal set of symptomatic and functional outcomes. A Mixed effects Models Repeated Measures analysis of variance (MMRM) was used to highlight group differences over time on symptomatic and functional outcomes assessed during the 3-year follow-up.
Results
A total of 325 patients with FEP aged between 18 and 35 years were included. Two groups were identified. A total of 187 patients (57.5%) did not achieve recovery, and 138 patients (42.5%) achieved recovery. Recovered patients had generally a better premorbid and baseline profile in comparison with non-recovered patients (as among which shorter duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), higher degree of insight, better functional level and lower illness severity at baseline). The trajectories for the psychopathological and functional outcomes over 36 months differed between the non-recovered and the recovered group of patients.
Conclusions
Our results pointed to some variables associated with recovery, acting as potential protective factors. These should be considered for early intervention programs to promote psychological resilience specifically in those with a worse prognosis in order to mitigate the effects of the variables that make them more vulnerable to poorer outcome.
There is a lack of standardised psychometric data in electronic health record (EHR)-based research. Proxy measures of symptom severity based on patients' clinical records may be useful surrogates in ...mental health EHR research.
This study aimed to validate proxy tools for the short versions of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS-6), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS-6) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-6).
A cross-sectional, multicentre study was conducted in a sample of 116 patients with first-episode psychosis from 12 public hospitals in Spain. Concordance between PANSS-6, YMRS-6 and MADRS-6 scores and their respective proxies was evaluated based on information from EHR clinical notes, using a variety of statistical procedures, including multivariate tests to adjust for potential confounders. Bootstrapping techniques were used for internal validation, and an independent cohort from the Treatment and Early Intervention in Psychosis Program (TIPP-Lausanne, Switzerland) for external validation.
The proxy versions correlated strongly with their respective standardised scales (partial correlations ranged from 0.75 to 0.84) and had good accuracy and discriminatory power in distinguishing between patients in and not in remission (percentage of patients correctly classified ranged from 83.9 to 91.4% and bootstrapped optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.76 to 0.89), with high interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.81). The findings remained robust in the external validation data-set.
The proxy instruments proposed for assessing psychotic and affective symptoms by reviewing EHR provide a feasible and reliable alternative to traditional structured psychometric procedures, and a promising methodology for real-world practice settings.
