Everyday life for patients with schizophrenia and severely impaired social functioning.

Background: A structure of everyday life creates routines and a sense of familiarity, which provides a recognizable basis for being and acting in the world. A structure of everyday life reduces stress, and daily stress has consistently been associated with higher levels of psychiatric symptoms. Little is known about how patients with schizophrenia and severe social impairment structure their lives. Thus, we aimed to explore the everyday lives of this group of patients, looking for structuring elements. Methods: In this qualitative study, we included patients diagnosed with schizophrenia who were either homeless or had difficulties reporting for treatment and, thus, needed treatment from an outreach team. Results: 17 participants were included in the study. We found only few structuring elements across all participants in the qualitative analyses. We identified five themes in our sample that serve as structuring elements in the everyday life: social interactions, volunteering to assist with basic tasks, self-initiated routines such as going for a walk daily, exoskeleton (structure provided by others), and having pets. None of the participants reported much activity during the day, and for most of them, social interactions were minimal. Discussion: All the participants had very little structure and routines in their everyday life. The shelters provided the homeless participants with some structuring elements, whereas the domiciled participants had no external structuring elements. The findings have important implications for psychosocial treatment of severe social impairment in schizophrenia. The lack of structure in these patients' everyday lives highlights the need for targeted interventions that could facilitate such structures and guide social involvement and personal recovery.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Association Between Psychopathology and Social Functioning in Schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Impaired social functioning is a major, but under-elucidated area of schizophrenia. It's typically understood as consequential to, eg, negative symptoms, but meta-analyses on the subject have not examined psychopathology in a broader perspective and there's severe heterogeneity in outcome measures. To enhance functional recovery from schizophrenia, a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of social functioning in schizophrenia is needed. STUDY DESIGN: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PsycInfo, and Ovid Embase for studies providing an association between psychopathology and social functioning. Meta-analyses of the regression and correlation coefficients were performed to explore associations between social functioning and psychopathology, as well as associations between their subdomains. STUDY RESULTS: Thirty-six studies with a total of 4742 patients were included. Overall social functioning was associated with overall psychopathology (95% CI [-0.63; -0.37]), positive symptoms (95% CI [-0.39; -0.25]), negative symptoms (95% CI [-0.61; -0.42]), disorganized symptoms (95% CI [-0.54; -0.14]), depressive symptoms (95% CI [-0.33; -0.11]), and general psychopathology (95% CI [-0.60; -0.43]). There was significant heterogeneity in the results, with I2 ranging from 52% to 92%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to comprehensively examine associations between psychopathology and social functioning. The finding that all psychopathological subdomains seem to correlate with social functioning challenges the view that impaired social functioning in schizophrenia is mainly a result of negative symptoms. In line with classical psychopathological literature on schizophrenia, it may be more appropriate to consider impaired social functioning as a manifestation of the disorder itself.

The prognosis of schizophrenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression of 20-year follow-up studies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to examine the general outcome of schizophrenia after 20 years or more. METHODS: Using the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression on long-term follow-up studies of schizophrenia up until April 21, 2021. We included prospective studies with at least 20 years of follow-up on patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and the studies had to include face-to-face clinical evaluation. We examined outcome in three nested groups: 'recovery', 'good or better' (including also 'recovery'), and 'moderate or better' (including also 'recovery' and 'good or better'). We used random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression to examine mean estimates and possible moderators. RESULTS: We identified 1089 records, which were screened by two independent researchers. 14 prospective studies (1991 patients) published between 1978 and 2020 were found eligible. The studies used a range of different scales and definitions for outcome, and some used the same definitions for different outcomes. To compare outcome across studies, we designed and applied a unified template for outcome definitions and cutoffs, based on earlier studies' recommendations. Our meta-analysis found that 24.2 % had 'recovered' (n = 246, CI: 20.3-28.0 %), 35.5 % had a 'good or better' outcome (n = 766, CI: 26.0-45.0%), and 59.7% had 'moderate or better' outcome (n = 1139, CI: 49.3-70.1 %). CONCLUSIONS: The results contribute to debunk the myth that schizophrenia inevitably has a deteriorating course. Recovery is certainly possible. Schizophrenia remains, however, a severe and complex mental disorder, exhibiting a limited change in prognosis despite >100 years of research and efforts to improve treatment.

Differential-diagnostic confusion and non-specificity of affective symptoms and anxiety: An empirical study of first-admission patients.

In everyday clinical work, psychiatrists encounter patients who present with symptoms spanning several diagnostic categories, e.g., showing signs of a psychosis, depression, and anxiety. This raises the critical question of which symptoms hold precedence over other and, by extension, which diagnosis is the right diagnosis. ICD-10 and DSM-5 do not provide unambiguous answers to this question and therefore psychiatry remains exposed to diagnostic disagreement with consequences for treatment and research. We explored symptom distribution in a sample of 98 first-admission psychiatric patients. We extracted and categorized singular symptoms into symptom domains: anxiety, mania, delusions, hallucinations, first-rank symptoms, and negative symptoms. Most symptoms were seen in most disorders. We found symptoms of depression and anxiety in almost all patients. Thus, just counting symptoms do not seem to be a valid way to make diagnoses. We elaborately discuss these issues in the context of the differential-diagnosis between schizophrenia and depression. Finally, we suggest that a combination of a criteria- and Gestalt-based approach to diagnosing mental disorders may contribute to counteract some of the current differential-diagnostic confusion.