Overlap and Mutual Distinctions Between Clinical Recovery and Personal Recovery in People With Schizophrenia in a One-Year Study

Julien Dubreucq; Franck Gabayet; Ophélia Godin; Myrtille Andre; Bruno Aouizerate; Delphine Capdevielle; Isabelle Chereau; Julie Clauss-Kobayashi; Nathalie Coulon; Thierry D’Amato; Jean-Michel Dorey; Caroline Dubertret; Mégane Faraldo; Hakim Laouamri; Sylvain Leigner; Christophe Lancon; Marion Leboyer; Pierre-Michel Llorca; Jasmina Mallet; David Misdrahi; Christine Passerieux; Romain Rey; Baptiste Pignon; Benoit Schorr; Mathieu Urbach; Franck Schürhoff; Andrei Szoke; FACE-SZ (FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia) Groups; Guillaume Fond; Fabrice Berna

doi:10.1093/schbul/sbab114

. 2021 Oct 29;48(2):382–394. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbab114

Overlap and Mutual Distinctions Between Clinical Recovery and Personal Recovery in People With Schizophrenia in a One-Year Study

Julien Dubreucq ^1,^2,^✉, Franck Gabayet ^1,², Ophélia Godin ^1,³, Myrtille Andre ^1,^4,⁵, Bruno Aouizerate ^1,^6,⁷, Delphine Capdevielle ^1,^4,⁵, Isabelle Chereau ^1,⁸, Julie Clauss-Kobayashi ^1,⁹, Nathalie Coulon ^1,², Thierry D’Amato ^10,¹¹, Jean-Michel Dorey ^12,¹³, Caroline Dubertret ^1,^14,¹⁵, Mégane Faraldo ^1,², Hakim Laouamri ¹, Sylvain Leigner ^1,², Christophe Lancon ^1,^14,¹⁵, Marion Leboyer ^1,^3,¹⁶, Pierre-Michel Llorca ^1,⁸, Jasmina Mallet ^1,^14,¹⁵, David Misdrahi ^1,¹⁷, Christine Passerieux ^1,^18,¹⁹, Romain Rey ^10,¹¹, Baptiste Pignon ^1,^3,¹⁶, Benoit Schorr ^1,⁹, Mathieu Urbach ^1,^18,¹⁹, Franck Schürhoff ^1,^3,¹⁶, Andrei Szoke ^1,^3,¹⁶; FACE-SZ (FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia) Groups ², Guillaume Fond ^1,²⁰, Fabrice Berna ^1,⁹

¹ Fondation FondaMental, Créteil, France

² Centre Référent de Réhabilitation psychosociale et de Remédiation cognitive (C3R), CH Alpes Isère, Saint Egrève, France

³ Univ Paris Est Créteil, INSERM U955, IMRB, Translational Neuro-Psychiatry, Créteil, France

⁴ IGF, University of Montpellier, CNRS, INSERM, Montpellier, France

⁵ Service Universitaire de Psychiatrie Adulte, Hôpital la Colombière, CHU Montpellier, France

⁶ Centre Hospitalier Charles Perrens, Université de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

⁷ INRA, NutriNeuro, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

⁸ Université Clermont Auvergne, CMP-B CHU, CNRS, Clermont Auvergne INP, Institut Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France

⁹ Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, Université de Strasbourg, INSERM U1114, Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France

¹⁰ INSERM, U1028, CNRS, UMR5292, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, PSYR2 team, Lyon, France

¹¹ Centre Hospitalier le Vinatier, Centre Expert Dépression Résistante, Lyon, France

¹² INSERM U1028, CNRS, UMR 5292, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center, EDUWELL Team, Lyon 2 University, Lyon, France

¹³ Centre Hospitalier le Vinatier, Pôle PsyPA, Lyon, France

¹⁴ AP-HP, Groupe Hospitalo-Universitaire AP-HP Nord, Service de Psychiatrie et Addictologie. Hôpital Louis Mourier, Colombes, France

¹⁵ Université de Paris INSERM UMR1266, Institute of Psychiatry and Neuroscience of Paris, Paris, France

¹⁶ AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Département Médico-Universitaire de Psychiatrie et d’Addictologie (DMU IMPACT), Fédération Hospitalo-Universitaire de Médecine de Précision en Psychiatrie (FHU ADAPT), Paris, France

¹⁷ Pôle de psychiatrie Générale et Universitaire, Centre Hospitalier Charles Perrens, Université de Bordeaux, CNRS UMR 5287-INCIA, Bordeaux, France

¹⁸ Service Universitaire de Psychiatrie d’Adultes et d’Addictologie, Centre Hospitalier de Versailles, Le Chesnay, France

¹⁹ DisAP-DevPsy-CESP, INSERM UMR1018, Université Paris-Saclay, Université Versailles Saint-Quentin-En-Yvelines, Villejuif, France

²⁰ AP-HM, Aix-Marseille Univ, School of medicine—La Timone Medical Campus, EA 3279: CEReSS—Health Service Research and Quality of Life Center, Marseille, France

^✉

To whom correspondence should be addressed to: Centre Référent de Réhabilitation psychosociale et de Remédiation Cognitive (C3R), CH Alpes Isère, 8 place du Conseil National de la Résistance, 38400 Saint Martin d’Hères, France; tel: (33 4) 56 58 88 00, e-mail: julien.dubreucq@hotmail.fr

List of FondaMental Advanced Center of Expertise (FACE-SZ) collaborators is available in the Acknowledgments section.

PMCID: PMC8886587 PMID: 34718808

Abstract

Recovery is a multidimensional construct that can be defined either from a clinical perspective or from a consumer-focused one, as a self-broadening process aimed at living a meaningful life beyond mental illness. We aimed to longitudinally examine the overlap and mutual distinctions between clinical and personal recovery. Of 1239 people with schizophrenia consecutively recruited from the FondaMental Advanced Centers of Expertise for SZ network, the 507 present at one-year did not differ from those lost to follow-up. Clinical recovery was defined as the combination of clinical remission and functional remission. Personal recovery was defined as being in the rebuilding or in the growth stage of the Stages of Recovery Instrument (STORI). Full recovery was defined as the combination of clinical recovery and personal recovery. First, we examined the factors at baseline associated with each aspect of recovery. Then, we conducted multivariable models on the correlates of stable clinical recovery, stable personal recovery, and stable full recovery after one year. At baseline, clinical recovery and personal recovery were characterized by distinct patterns of outcome (i.e. better objective outcomes but no difference in subjective outcomes for clinical recovery, the opposite pattern for personal recovery, and better overall outcomes for full recovery). We found that clinical recovery and personal recovery predicted each other over time (baseline personal recovery for stable clinical recovery at one year; P = .026, OR = 4.94 [1.30–23.0]; baseline clinical recovery for stable personal recovery at one year; P = .016, OR = 3.64 [1.31–11.2]). In short, given the interaction but also the degree of difference between clinical recovery and personal recovery, psychosocial treatment should target, beyond clinical recovery, subjective aspects such as personal recovery and depression to reach full recovery.

Keywords: clinical recovery, personal recovery, full recovery, schizophrenia, psychosocial treatment

Introduction

Recovery is a multidimensional construct that encompasses both subjective (e.g. wellbeing, quality of life, self-esteem) and objective outcomes (e.g. independent living, interpersonal and intimate relationships, work). It can be defined either from a clinical perspective (i.e. sustained symptom and functional remission, referred to as clinical recovery) or from a consumer-focused one, as a self-broadening process aimed at living a meaningful life beyond mental illness (i.e. personal recovery¹).

Clinical recovery concerns roughly one in five people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders (SSD) and has long been the focus of therapeutic interventions.^1,2 Late age of onset, high insight into illness, low negative symptoms and self-stigma, and high social support are characteristics often associated with stable clinical recovery.¹ A small to moderate overlap has been found between clinical recovery and personal recovery in a 2018 meta-analysis.³ Personal recovery is associated with reduced depression and better psychosocial function.^3,4 It has been found to be unrelated to cognitive function and psychotic symptoms.³ It is associated with metacognitive abilities, social support, socially valued roles, and other recovery-related outcomes (i.e. quality of life, self-esteem, low self-stigma, stigma resistance, hope, and wellbeing).^1,5–7 Personal recovery could protect against insight-related depression, self-stigma, and suicidal ideation.^8,9

Personal recovery involves redefining a positive identity extending beyond mental illness and finding meaning in psychosis-related disruption to a person’s life.¹ Gender differences have been reported in psychosis-related interruptions to the social roles and relationships that shape a person’s identity (i.e. loss of employment for men; failed relationships and loss of parenting role for women).¹⁰ This might contribute to gender differences in the pattern of recovery (i.e. association of female gender to higher clinical recovery in some studies but not others^2,11,12; to higher personal recovery in Song, 2017¹³; to more socially valued roles but also poorer recovery-related outcomes¹⁴).

According to an emerging consensus, recovery-oriented treatment should be integrative and focus on both objective and subjective outcomes.¹ Full recovery in SSD (i.e. clinical and personal recovery/clinical recovery and high wellbeing or satisfaction with life)^6,15 remain rare (1.3% of 1421 participants)¹⁵ and its characteristics largely unknown. Although symptom and functional remission have been associated with better long-term clinical recovery and quality of life,^12,16–18 their impact on personal recovery or wellbeing remains limited.^3,4,6 On the contrary, treating depression and supporting personal recovery during treatment could contribute to stable clinical recovery and to optimal outcome in SSD.^4,19,20

While a number of cross-sectional studies have investigated the relationship between clinical recovery and personal recovery, how they relate to each other over time remains largely unclear.³ Given the role of time in recovery, the lack of longitudinal research on this topic may be a substantial limitation to the current body of evidence.³ Besides and to our knowledge, all the longitudinal studies that reported on the relationship between clinical recovery and personal recovery used a follow-up period ranging from 6 months to one year.^3,6,15 This might be another limitation as the trajectories of people with SSD tend to unfold over many years.^1,2 However, study quality and the duration of follow-up did not affect the rates of clinical recovery in a 2013 meta-analysis of 50 studies.² Besides, study quality, rated as moderate to high in Van Eck et al. 2018 meta-analysis,³ did not moderate the relationship between clinical recovery and personal recovery.

The objective of the present longitudinal study was to examine the overlap and mutual distinctions between clinical and personal recovery in a large non-selected multicentric sample of people with SSD. In support of conceptual distinction between clinical and personal recovery, we hypothesized that distinct patterns of objective and subjective outcomes would be found at baseline depending on which aspect of recovery is considered (i.e. no recovery, clinical recovery only; personal recovery only; clinical recovery and personal recovery). On the contrary, in support of mutual relationship between both facets of recovery, we also hypothesized that personal recovery at baseline would be associated with stable clinical recovery after one year of follow-up and that clinical recovery at baseline would be associated with stable personal recovery at one year. Finally, according to the literature reviewed above^4,19 we hypothesized that depression and psychosocial function at baseline (correlates of both clinical and personal recovery) would mediate these longitudinal relationships between clinical recovery and personal recovery.

Material and Methods

Study Population

One thousand two hundred and thirty-nine clinically stabilized persons with schizophrenia-spectrum disorder (SSD) were consecutively recruited from the FACE-SZ network between 2010 and July 2019. The FACE-SZ cohort is based on an ongoing French national network of schizophrenia Expert Centers that has been extensively described in a previous article.²¹ Patients are referred to these centers by their general practitioner or psychiatrist, who remains in charge of routine care and treatment, or are self-referred. A comprehensive clinical, functional, and cognitive assessment is performed to establish the individual’s strengths and weaknesses, autonomy, and occupational level. Follow-up is planned to last for 3 to 5 years. At the end of each evaluation, a detailed evaluation report is sent to the patient and the referrer along with a personalized care program multifaceted and including the rationale for psychosocial treatment recommendation. The appraisal protocol was approved by the relevant Ethical Review Board (CPP-Ile de France IX) on January 18, 2010. All participants gave their written informed consent.

Data Collected

Clinical Recovery

Clinical recovery (CR) was defined as the association of clinical remission and functional remission during a period of one year. Clinical remission was defined using Andreasen’s criteria²² on Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS).²³ Functional remission was defined using the cut-off scores proposed by Jääskeläinen et al. in 2013²: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)²⁴ score > 61 or Personal and Social Performance (PSP)²⁵ score > 61. This multidimensional definition combining symptom remission and functional remission corresponds to the operational criteria for clinical recovery proposed by R.P Liberman et al. in 2002²⁶ and revised in Jääskeläinen et al. meta-analysis in 2013². However, we used a shorter timeframe compared with these studies (usually 2 years or more^2,26). This limitation will be discussed later.

Personal Recovery

Personal recovery (PR) was measured using the Stage of Recovery Instrument (STORI).²⁷ The STORI is a 50-item self-report instrument assessing the five stages of personal recovery described by Andresen in 2003²⁷. The first stage of personal recovery (moratorium) is characterized by a profound sense of loss and hopelessness. The second stage (awareness) corresponds to the first glimmer of hope for a better life and that recovery is possible. During the third stage (preparation), the person resolves to start working on recovery (e.g. by taking stock of personal resources, values and limitations). The fourth stage, rebuilding, corresponds to the active stage of personal recovery by redefining a positive identity, setting meaningful goals, and taking control of one’s life. The fifth stage, growth, is characterized by living a full and meaningful life beyond mental illness. Ten themes are assessed, each with five items ranging from 0 “Not at all true” to 5 “Completely true” mapping onto the five stages of personal recovery. A score for each stage is calculated ranging from 0 to 50 and the participant is allocated to the stage with the highest score. In case of equal scores in two stages, the participant is allocated to the higher stage. The STORI has good internal consistency (alpha 0.88–0.94).²⁷ Personal recovery was defined as being classified in the rebuilding or in the growth stage.

Full Recovery

Full recovery was defined as the association of clinical recovery and personal recovery during a period of one-year.

Other Collected Data

General information on education, illness onset and trajectory, and comorbidities was recorded. Illness severity was assessed with the Clinical Global Impression (CGI)²⁸ scale. Current depressive symptoms were evaluated using the Calgary Depression rating Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS).²⁹ Insight was measured both with a self-reported measure (Birchwood Insight Scale; BIS)³⁰ and with the clinician-rated Scale to assess Unawareness of illness in Mental Disorders (SUMD).³¹ Adherence into treatment was self-reported with the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS).³² Quality of life (QoL) was evaluated with the self-reported Quality of Life scale (S-QoL).³³ Neuropsychological cognitive assessments included Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-4^th edition (WAIS-IV)³⁴ Matrix and Similarities subscales for respectively non-verbal logical reasoning and verbal abstraction and WAIS-IV subscales assessing short-term and working memories.³⁴

Statistical Analysis

Data are presented as the mean and SD for continuous variables and number and percentage for categorical variables. For comparison between groups, Chi-square test was used for categorical variables and linear model ANOVAs for continuous variables. Univariate significance p-values were computed, and covariates significant at the 10% level were included in multivariable logistic regression models. The first question was to examine the overlap and mutual distinctions between four aspects of recovery at baseline (no recovery; clinical recovery without personal recovery; personal recovery without clinical recovery; full recovery). Association between these different aspects of recovery and several outcomes were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Supplementary Table 1 presents for each covariate a boxplot and the results of an ANOVA on different aspects of recovery at baseline. The second question was a longitudinal examination of the correlates at baseline of respectively stable clinical recovery, stable personal recovery, and stable full recovery. Clinical recovery at one year was retained as the predictor for the first multivariate analysis. Based on univariable analysis, the values at baseline of fifteen variables of interest were considered as covariates: age, gender, education level, personal autonomy, vocational status, marital status, age of onset, insight, treatment adherence, depressive symptoms, quality of life, non-verbal logical reasoning, verbal abstraction, working memory, and short-term memory. Personal recovery at one year was retained as the predictor for the second multivariate analysis. Eight variables were considered as covariates: age, gender, marital status, general psychopathology, depressive symptoms, psychosocial function, treatment adherence, and quality of life. Full recovery at one year was retained as the predictor for the third multivariate analysis. Ten variables were considered as covariates: age, gender, education level, age of onset, insight, depressive symptoms, quality of life, verbal reasoning, working memory, and short-term memory for full recovery. Exhaustive variable selection determined the best model in the sense of adjusted R-squared. The third question was to detect potential mediating effects of psychosocial function, depression, and quality of life in the longitudinal relationships between clinical recovery and personal recovery. A path analysis was conducted following the procedure described by Baron and Kenny.³⁵ The first step was to test for correlations between the predictor (clinical recovery or personal recovery at baseline) and the variable to be explained (stable clinical recovery or stable personal recovery at follow-up). The second step was to test the effect of the predictor (clinical recovery or personal recovery at baseline) on the potential mediating variables (psychosocial function, depression, or quality of life). The third step was to test for indirect effects mediated by the potential mediators and to see whether the relationship between the predictor and the variable to be explained remained or not significant after controlling for stigma resistance (partial or full mediation). P-values <.05 were considered significant. All statistical analyses were performed using R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria; https://www.R-project.org/).³⁶

Results

The sample consisted of 1239 clinically stabilized persons with schizophrenia-spectrum disorder (SSD) consecutively recruited from the FACE-SZ network. They had been included in this cohort study between 2010 and July 2019. Participants were mostly men (923; 74.5%) with mean illness duration of 10.23 (SD = 8.07) years. Baseline (V0) sample characteristics are presented on Table 1. After one year of follow-up (V1), 507 patients (40.9%) were examined again. They did not differ from those lost to follow-up regarding our variables of interest (i.e. clinical recovery, personal recovery, and full recovery; see table 1).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics and differences with lost-to follow-up

	Lost to follow-up (N = 730)	Present to follow-up (N = 509)	Total (N = 1239)	P value
Age				.258¹
Mean (SD)	31.456 (9.376)	32.084 (9.934)	31.714 (9.610)
Range	16.000–70.000	15.000–85.000	15.000–85.000
Gender				.089²
F	199 (27.3%)	117 (23.0%)	316 (25.5%)
M	531 (72.7%)	392 (77.0%)	923 (74.5%)
Education level (years)				.336¹
Mean (SD)	12.211 (2.534)	12.359 (2.632)	12.275 (2.577)
Range	0.000–20.000	1.000–20.000	0.000–20.000
Vocational status (employed)				.686²
No	504 (84.3%)	396 (83.4%)	900 (83.9%)
Yes	94 (15.7%)	79 (16.6%)	173 (16.1%)
Marital status (in a couple)				.127²
No	529 (89.2%)	425 (92.0%)	954 (90.4%)
Yes	64 (10.8%)	37 (8.0%)	101 (9.6%)
Parents				.279²
No	554 (91.1%)	419 (89.1%)	973 (90.3%)
Yes	54 (8.9%)	51 (10.9%)	105 (9.7%)
PANSS Positive				.487¹
Mean (SD)	14.556 (6.013)	14.792 (5.300)	14.656 (5.721)
Range	7.000–45.000	7.000–34.000	7.000–45.000
PANSS Negative				.140¹
Mean (SD)	19.840 (7.196)	20.467 (7.157)	20.105 (7.183)
Range	7.000–44.000	7.000–42.000	7.000–44.000
PANSS General Psychopathology				.601¹
Mean (SD)	34.873 (10.488)	35.190 (9.815)	35.008 (10.205)
Range	16.000–75.000	16.000–71.000	16.000–75.000
Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia				.207¹
Mean (SD)	3.881 (4.174)	4.193 (4.219)	4.013 (4.194)
Range	0.000–21.000	0.000–21.000	0.000–21.000
Subjective Quality Of Life (S-QOL)				.017 ¹
Mean (SD)	52.750 (18.353)	50.131 (17.736)	51.628 (18.130)
Range	1.560–100.000	0.000–100.000	0.000–100.000
Global Assessment of Functioning				.081¹
Mean (SD)	50.159 (13.205)	48.791 (13.226)	49.580 (13.225)
Range	15.000–91.000	11.000–89.000	11.000–91.000
Personal and Social Performance scale (PSP)				.454¹
N-Miss	403	365	768
Mean (SD)	55.648 (15.546)	54.514 (14.129)	55.301 (15.121)
Range	9.000–95.000	18.000–81.000	9.000–95.000
IS Birchwood - Total score				.433¹
Mean (SD)	8.699 (2.956)	8.838 (2.892)	8.759 (2.929)
Range	0.000–12.000	0.000–12.000	0.000–12.000
SUMD1				.437¹
Mean (SD)	1.648 (0.765)	1.613 (0.737)	1.633 (0.754)
Range	0.000–3.000	0.000–3.000	0.000–3.000
Medication Adherence Rating Scale - Total score				.145¹
Mean (SD)	6.139 (2.218)	6.335 (2.215)	6.223 (2.218)
Range	0.000–10.000	0.000–10.000	0.000–10.000
WAIS-IV Similarities				.480¹
Mean (SD)	9.551 (3.330)	9.700 (3.550)	9.617 (3.428)
Range	1.000–18.000	1.000–18.000	1.000–18.000
WAIS-IV Matrix				.306¹
Mean (SD)	8.147 (3.188)	8.350 (3.250)	8.237 (3.216)
Range	1.000–17.000	1.000–17.000	1.000–17.000
WAIS-IV short term memory				.557¹
Mean (SD)	9.060 (2.096)	8.985 (2.033)	9.027 (2.068)
Range	4.000–16.000	4.000–16.000	4.000–16.000
WAIS IV- working memory				.006 ¹
Mean (SD)	6.940 (2.160)	6.573 (2.178)	6.778 (2.175)
Range	2.000–15.000	2.000–15.000	2.000–15.000
Symptomatic remission				.283²
No	566 (84.6%)	429 (86.8%)	995 (85.6%)
Yes	103 (15.4%)	65 (13.2%)	168 (14.4%)
Functional remission				.222²
No	182 (48.7%)	88 (43.3%)	270 (46.8%)
Yes	192 (51.3%)	115 (56.7%)	307 (53.2%)
Clinical Recovery				.221²
No	580 (89.6%)	437 (91.8%)	1017 (90.6%)
Yes	67 (10.4%)	39 (8.2%)	106 (9.4%)
Personal recovery (STORI stage IV and V)				.054²
No	117 (42.9%)	69 (53.1%)	186 (46.2%)
Yes	156 (57.1%)	61 (46.9%)	217 (53.8%)
Age of onset				.132¹
Mean (SD)	21.096 (6.245)	21.667 (6.540)	21.339 (6.375)
Range	5.000–61.000	5.000–63.000	5.000–63.000
Illness duration (years)				.502¹
Mean (SD)	10.098 (7.940)	10.420 (8.252)	10.235 (8.072)
Range	–7.000 to 45.000	–13.000 to 58.000	–13.000 to 58.000
Body Mass Index				.132¹
Mean (SD)	21.096 (6.245)	21.667 (6.540)	21.339 (6.375)
Range	5.000–61.000	5.000–63.000	5.000–63.000

Open in a new tab

¹Linear Model ANOVA

²Pearson’s Chi-squared test

Overlap and Mutual Distinctions Between Clinical and Personal Recovery at Baseline

Supplementary table 1 presents the overlap and mutual distinctions between four aspects of recovery at baseline (no recovery; clinical recovery without personal recovery; personal recovery without clinical recovery; full recovery). Clinical recovery, personal recovery, and full recovery were associated with verbal reasoning and working memory. Compared to people who did not meet the criteria for clinical or personal recovery, we identified three distinct patterns of outcome: i) better objective outcomes (e.g. psychotic symptoms, insight, and psychosocial function) but no differences in subjective outcomes (e.g. depression and quality of life) for people meeting the criteria only for clinical recovery; ii) similar objective outcomes but better subjective outcomes for people meeting the criteria only for personal recovery; iii) better objective and subjective outcomes for those in full recovery.

Recovery in the FACE-SZ Network

After one-year of follow-up, 84 patients (16.6%) met the criteria for stable clinical recovery (i.e. clinical recovery during a period of one year) and 61 patients (46.9%) were classified in the stable personal recovery group. Twenty patients met the criteria for stable full recovery (4.8%). Table 2 shows the rates of the different aspects of recovery after one-year.

Table 2.

Rates of Recovery at Baseline and After 1 y of Follow-up

	Clinical Recovery (n/N_tot (%))	Personal Recovery (n/N_tot (%))	Full Recovery (n/N_tot (%))
At baseline	106/1123 (9.4)	270/403 (67)	66/1002 (6.6)
After 1 y of follow-up	84/507 (16.6)	61/130 (46.9)	20/416 (4.8)

Open in a new tab

Baseline Correlates of Stable Recovery After One-Year of Follow-up

Table 3 presents the results of three multivariate analyses on the baseline correlates of stable clinical recovery, personal recovery, and full recovery after one-year of follow-up. Female gender, depressive symptoms, insight, verbal reasoning, and personal recovery best predicted clinical recovery at one year. Clinical recovery and quality of life at baseline best predicted personal recovery at one year. Female gender, depressive symptoms, verbal reasoning and working memory best predicted full recovery at one-year.

Table 3.

Multivariate Analyses

	Clinical Recovery				Personal Recovery				Full Recovery
Predictors	Odds Ratios	CI	Statistic	P	Odds Ratios	CI	Statistic	P	Odds Ratios	CI	Statistic	P
Gender (Female)	11.00	2.51–64.5	2.95	<.001					6.67	1.24–40.29	2.20	.027
Age of onset									0.89	0.76–1.02	−1.43	.150
SUMD unawareness	0.23	0.05–0.76	−2.18	.029
Clinical Recovery					3.64	1.31–11.2	2.39	.016
CDSS	0.68	0.49–0.88	−2.60	<.001					0.37	0.17–0.65	−2.91	.003
S-QoL					1.06	1.03–1.09	4.02	<.001
Personal recovery (STORI IV&V)	4.94	1.30–23.0	2.24	.026
WAIS IV Working Memory									1.52	1.03–2.32	2.12	.033
WAIS IV Similarities standard note	1.59	1.26–2.13	3.52	<.001					1.50	1.19–2.03	3.10	.001
Observations	107				123				378
R ² Tjur	0.48				0.23				0.18
AIC	74.69				145.21				64.68

Open in a new tab

Note: CDSS, Calgary Depression Scale for schizophrenia; CI, confidence interval; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; S-QoL, Subjective Quality of Life; STORI, Stage of Recovery Instrument; SUMD, Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder. This table presents the results of three multivariate analyses on respectively the correlates of clinical recovery, personal recovery and full recovery. Exhaustive variable selection determined the best model in the sense of adjusted R². Logistic regression (restricted model vs full model: χ² = 2.41, P = .66 for clinical recovery; restricted model vs full model: χ² = 0.76, P = .38 for personal recovery; restricted model vs full model: χ² = 0.76, P = .38 for full recovery).

Moderation/Mediation Analyses

Table 4 presents the results of mediation analyses. The effects of clinical recovery at baseline on stable personal recovery at follow-up were partially mediated by depression (beta = 0.06; P = .018) and quality of life (beta = 0.11; P = .015). Depression (beta = 0.03; P = .026) and psychosocial function (beta = 0.13; P = .002) partially mediated the effects of personal recovery at baseline on stable clinical recovery at follow-up.

Table 4.

Mediation Analyses

Outcome (y)	Predictor (x)	Mediator (m)	Total effect (c) (P-value)		Direct effect (c') (p-value)		Indirect effect (ab) (ab, ab[95%CI])	R²
- Stable PR (V1)	- CR (V0)	- CDSS	- 0.40	- <.01	- 0.34	- <.01	0.06 [0.01-0.11]; P = .018	0.14
- Stable CR (V1	- PR (V0)	- CDSS	- 0.23	- <.01	- 0.21	- <.01	0.03 [0.01-0.05]; P = .026	0.11
- Stable PR (V1)	- CR (V0)	- S-QoL	- 0.40	- <.01	- 0.29	- <.01	0.11 [0.06-0.18]; P = .015	0.22
- Stable CR (V1)	- PR (V0)	- GAF	- 0.23	- <.01	- 0.11	- <.01	0.13 [0.04-0.19]; P = .002	0.49
• Clinical recovery (V0)- Calgary Depression Scale- Stable personal recovery (V1)		• Personal recovery (V0)- Calgary Depression Scale- Stable clinical recovery (V1)		• Clinical recovery (V0)- Subjective quality of life- Stable personal recovery (V1)			• Clinical recovery (V0)- Psychosocial function- Stable personal recovery (V1)

Open in a new tab

Note: c, total effect; c’, direct effect; ab, indirect effect; PR, personal recovery; CR, clinical recovery; CDSS, Calgary Depression Scale; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; S-QoL, Subjective Quality of Life.

Discussion

Main Findings

To our knowledge, this study is the first to: i) assess longitudinally the overlap and mutual distinctions between clinical and personal recovery in a large non-selected multicentric SSD sample; ii) test for potential mediating effects of depression, psychosocial function, and quality of life on the mutual longitudinal relationships between clinical recovery and personal recovery. The results supported our research hypotheses. We found that, while related, clinical recovery and personal recovery were distinct constructs characterized by different patterns of outcome when separately considered and compared to the absence of recovery (i.e. better objective outcomes but no difference in subjective outcomes for clinical recovery only and the opposite for personal recovery only). We extended the findings of previous cross-sectional research³ with a longitudinal examination and found that clinical recovery and personal recovery predicted each other over time (5-fold likelihood of remaining in clinical recovery after one year for those in the advanced stages of personal recovery at baseline; 3-fold likelihood to remain in the advanced stages of personal recovery after one year for those being in clinical recovery at baseline). We found partial mediating effects of depression, psychosocial function, and quality of life on the longitudinal relationships between clinical recovery and personal recovery.

Interpretation of the Results

Overlap and Mutual Distinctions Between Clinical Recovery and Personal Recovery After One-Year of Follow-up

We found distinct patterns of outcomes at baseline when separately considering clinical recovery and personal recovery. This could be related to several factors. First, clinical recovery involves the perception of others about wellness, and personal recovery is the perception of wellness by the persons themselves.¹ Thus, some interaction but also some degree of difference between clinical recovery and personal recovery is expected.^1,3 Second, this result could be explained by the “insight paradox,” which posits that good insight improves objective outcomes (e.g. psychotic symptoms, treatment adherence, and psychosocial function) while negatively affecting subjective outcomes (e.g. depression, quality of life, and personal recovery).^1,9,37,38 Similarly, poor insight is often associated with poor objective outcomes but also protects against subjective aspects such as self-stigma and insight-related depression.^9,37,39

Several factors might also contribute to the finding that clinical recovery and personal recovery could predict each other over time. First, personal recovery could reduce psychotic symptoms and protect against their detrimental effects on emotional distress, capacity for social relatedness, and social function.^1,40,41 Personal recovery also helps to protect against self-stigma, insight-related depression, and their negative effects on the objective and subjective aspects of recovery (e.g. higher psychotic symptoms, impaired psychosocial function; depression; reduced self-esteem, stigma resistance, and quality of life).^1,6,9,42 The partial mediating effects of psychosocial function in the relationship between personal recovery at baseline and stable clinical recovery at follow-up partially supports this hypothesis.

Second, some studies^6,43,44 reported that symptom reduction could contribute to personal recovery through reducing emotional distress associated to positive symptoms while other showed that having stable symptom remission contributes to long-term functional remission and better personal recovery outcome such as wellbeing and quality of life.^6,12,16,18 In contrast, Van Eck et al.³ reported a positive but small association between psychosocial function and personal recovery. Our results showed a partial mediating effect of quality of life in the relationship between clinical recovery at baseline and stable personal recovery at follow-up. This might rather support the hypothesis that functional remission contributes more than symptom remission to personal recovery. Previous studies suggested that this effect might be either direct or indirect through engagement in meaningful social roles and adaptive coping strategies.^1,3,5,45,46 The fact that socially valued roles at baseline did not correlate with personal recovery at one year (this aligning with Tew et al. and Dubreucq et al.)^14,47 rather supports a direct effect of functional remission on personal recovery. Quality of life taps a range of resources related to both aspects of recovery (e.g. physical wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, self-esteem, self-stigma, family relationships, friendships, intimate relationships, autonomy, and resilience)^33,42 and mediates the relationship between social support and personal recovery.⁴⁸ It may therefore also be hypothesized that some of these resources are needed to translate clinical recovery into the experience of personal recovery.^6,48 However, while one could expect that poverty is associated with reduced quality of life in people with SSD, recent research from the FACE-SSD network has reported the opposite.⁴⁹

Apart from psychotic symptoms, depression was also found to contribute to the relationships between clinical and personal recovery. Depression affects on-third of people with SSD (35% in the present sample) and is known to impact negatively both physical and mental health.^3,19,50 Previous studies also reported poorer objective and subjective recovery-related outcomes (i.e. clinical recovery, self-stigma, wellbeing, and quality of life)^{3,4,16,19,20,50} associated with depression in SSD participants. Finally, we found a positive association between clinical recovery and two domains related to executive functions (working memory and verbal reasoning) in contrast to Morrison et al (2016)⁵¹ who failed to find similar association. As executive functions contribute to the use of adaptive coping strategies and to improve both stigma resistance and functional outcomes,^9,52 it seems reasonable to posit that cognitive function could indirectly contribute to personal recovery.⁵³ All in all, these results support an integrative definition of recovery that could be defined as the combination of both objective and subjective outcomes.¹

Clinical Implications

The present study has several potential clinical implications. First, our results support and extend previous findings indicating that depression and personal recovery should be targeted during psychosocial treatment to improve the objective and subjective aspects of recovery.^3,4,6,41 While psychosocial treatment improves some of the objective aspects of recovery (i.e. psychotic symptoms, insight, treatment adherence, cognition, and psychosocial function), its effectiveness on socially valued roles, depression, wellbeing, and quality of life remains limited.^54–57

The development of recovery-oriented practices (i.e. person-centered, strengths-based, and supporting hope, empowerment, and goal-striving behaviors)⁵⁸ in mental health facilities should be encouraged.⁵⁹ Peer-supported self-management interventions as well as recovery-oriented psychoeducation and family psychoeducation help to reduce self-stigma and protect against insight-related depression^7,39,60,61 and therefore facilitate personal recovery in people with SSD.⁵⁹ In addition, cognitive remediation could indirectly contribute to personal recovery and full recovery through improved executive functioning, improved stigma resistance, and increased use of adaptive coping strategies.⁵³

More specifically, treating depression seems a crucial target in order to facilitate personal recovery and full recovery.^{3,4,20,42,50,62} Besides antidepressants, interventions targeting physical health can also improve depression and recovery-related outcomes and should be further developed.^62–65 Finally, given that engaging in meaningful social roles (e.g. paid employment, intimate relationships, or becoming a parent) during psychosocial treatment contributes to personal recovery,⁴⁵ Individual Placement and Support strategies should be encouraged to improve clinical, functional, and vocational outcomes in people with SSD^66,67 and therefore facilitate personal recovery.⁶⁸ In addition, recovery-oriented interventions supporting people with SSD when dating or deciding to start a family are also likely to improve personal recovery, although this remains to be investigated.^14,69

Recovery implies finding meaning in the experience of psychosis and psychosis-related disruption to a person’s life (i.e. loss of employment, failed relationships, and loss of parenting role).¹⁰ Preventing psychosis-related interruptions to valued social roles or reinvesting valued social roles during psychosocial treatment could contribute to personal recovery.^10,14 Research on metacognition (i.e. the spectrum of activities ranging from discrete mental experiences to the synthesis of intentions, thoughts, and feelings in a complex and coherent representation of self and others)⁷⁰ has suggested that improving metacognitive abilities during psychosocial treatment could contribute to personal recovery, through richer self-narratives, improved meaning-making, reduced self-stigma, and less insight-related depression.^1,70,71 The potential effectiveness of specific approaches targeting metacognition such as Metacognitive Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT)⁷⁰ on personal recovery remains however to be investigated.⁹

The pattern of recovery associated with female gender (i.e. higher clinical recovery but no difference in personal recovery) concurs with previous studies.^11,12,14,72 Firmin et al (2020)¹⁰ and Dubreucq et al (2021)¹⁴ found that women with SSD could have unique treatment needs when the subjective aspects of recovery are considered. Future research should investigate whether gender-sensitive recovery-oriented interventions contribute to full recovery in women with SSD.¹⁴

Limits

The present study has several limitations. First, although the FACE-SSD network covers a large proportion of the French territory, it cannot be definitively asserted that its database constitutes a representative sample of the French population of patients with SSD. However, some of the sample characteristics suggest that the present sample is comparable to the general community-dwelling SSD population. Second, although the male to female ratio in the present sample is comparable to those reported in non-epidemiological and psychiatric rehabilitation cohort studies (66% of males in Longenecker et al. 2010⁷³ meta-analysis of 220 studies; 74.5% of males of the 1055 participants from the REHABase cohort¹⁴), a recent systematic review by Charlson et al⁷⁴ found no sex differences in the prevalence of SSD. The predominance of males in the present sample is, therefore, a limitation. Future research with more balanced samples will be needed to replicate or extend these findings. Third, a high proportion of patients (59.1%) were lost to follow-up between V0 and V1. However, the patients present at follow-up did not differ at baseline from follow-up patients regarding our variables of interest and may therefore be considered representative of the original sample. Fourth, personal recovery was measured with a self-report measure, which is particularly suitable for large cohort studies. Nevertheless, since personal recovery is an individualized and deeply subjective process, it is best measured with a self-reported instrument⁷⁵ or using qualitative methods.¹ Future research using a mixed-methods design may therefore be needed to better understand the overlap and mutual distinctions over time between clinical recovery and personal recovery. Besides, as metacognition facilitates the kind of meaning making needed in personal recovery, the inclusion of a scale measuring metacognition such as the Metacognition Assessment Scale–Abbreviated (MAS-A)⁷⁶ in the FACE-SSD database could allow a longitudinal investigation of its relations with clinical recovery and personal recovery. Fifth, clinical recovery is often defined as clinical and functional remission lasting at least two years.² The one-year follow-up period of this study is, therefore, a substantial limitation. However, the subjective aspects of recovery refer to a process rather than to an outcome and thus may vary over time.¹ Future studies with a longer follow-up period will be needed to replicate or extend these findings. Sixth, the high proportion of people with co-occurring depression (35%) could contribute to the low ratings of quality of life.⁵⁰ However, the frequency of co-occurring depression in the present sample is comparable to those reported in a recent meta-analysis.⁷⁷ Besides, while depression was negatively associated with quality of life, its inclusion as a covariate in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) did not change the pattern of associations at baseline between quality of life and the different aspect of recovery (the results are presented in Supplementary table 2).

In short, the present study has shown that clinical recovery and personal recovery predicted each other in a longitudinal examination. This suggests that, beyond targeting clinical recovery, psychosocial treatment should also focus on depressive symptoms and personal recovery to achieve full recovery. The implementation of recovery-oriented practices in mental health facilities could contribute to recovery and should be encouraged. Future psychosocial treatments should also be integrative and target both objective and subjective aspects of recovery.

Supplementary Material

sbab114_suppl_Supplementary_Table_1

Click here for additional data file.^{(271.1KB, docx)}

sbab114_suppl_Supplementary_Table_2

Click here for additional data file.^{(13.6KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

We thank the FondaMental Foundation (www-fondationfondamental.org), which is a non-profit foundation supporting research in psychiatry in France and coordinating the infrastructure of Expert Centers for SSD. We express all our thanks to the patients who have accepted to be included in the present study. We thank the team of FondaMental foundation, Hakim Laouamri and his team (Seif Ben Salem, Karmène Souyris, Victor Barteau and Mohamed Laaidi) for the development of the FACE-SSD computer interface, data management, quality control and regulatory aspects. We are grateful to Pr Bernard Ycart (IMAG, University of Grenoble Alpes) for his precious advices and remarks on the statistical analyses. We are also grateful to the reviewers of a previous version of the manuscript for their helpful comments. The authors had full access to the data in the study and take the responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Dr Julien Dubreucq drafted the article, made the literature review and conducted the statistical analysis. Pr Fabrice Berna, Dr Ophélia Godin, and Dr Guillaume Fond contributed to the interpretation of data and critically revised the article. All the authors were involved in the collection and analysis of the data. All authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript. The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study.

FACE-SZ Clinical Coordinating Center (Fondation FondaMental): F. Berna, E. Haffen, M. Leboyer, PM Llorca and F. Schürhoff; FACE-SZ Data Coordinating Center (Fondation FondaMental): V. Barteau, S. Bensalem, O. Godin, H. Laouamri and K. Souryis; FACE-SZ Clinical Sites and Principal Collaborators in France: AP-HP, INSERM U955, Translational Psychiatry Team, DHU Pe-PSY, Centre Expert Schizophrénie, Pôle de Psychiatrie et d’Addictologie des Hôpitaux Universitaires Henri Mondor, Paris Est University, 40 rue de Mesly, 94000 Créteil, France: M. Leboyer, B. Pignon, F. Schürhoff J. Petrucci, G. Wahiche, E. Bourguignon, and A. Szöke; Department of Adult Psychiatry, Charles Perrens Hospital, F-33076 Bordeaux, France; Laboratory of Nutrition and Integrative Neurobiology (UMR INRA 1286), University of Bordeaux, France: B. Aouizerate; Department of Adult Psychiatry, Charles Perrens Hospital, F-33076 Bordeaux; University of Bordeaux, CNRS UMR 5287-INCIA, Bordeaux, France: A. Deloge, D. Misdrahi and E. Vilà; CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Department of Psychiatry (service de psychatrie B), University of Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France: O. Blanc, I. Chéreau, H. Denizot, RM. Honciuc, D. Lacelle, PM. Llorca and S. Pires; AP-HP, Department of Psychiatry, Louis Mourier Hospital, Colombes, Inserm UMR1266, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurosciences of Paris, University Paris Descartes, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de médecine, France: C. Dubertret, J. Mallet, and C. Portalier; Psychosocial Rehabilitation and cognitive Remediation Reference Center, Alpes-Isère Hospital, Grenoble, France: N. Coulon, M. Faraldo, F. Gabayet, S. Leignier and C. Roman; University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Le Vinatier Hospital Pole Est BP 300 39 - 95 bd Pinel - 69678 Bron Cedex, France: G. Chesnoy-Servanin, T. D’Amato, JM. Dorey, R. Rey and A. Vehier; Department of Psychiatry (AP-HM), Sainte-Marguerite University Hospital, Marseille, France: C. Lançon, C. Faget, E. Metairie, P. Peri and F. Vaillant; AP-HM, la Conception Hospital, Aix-Marseille Univ, School of medicine - La Timone Medical Campus, EA 3279: CEReSS - Health Service Research: L. Boyer and G. Fond; Strasbourg University Hospital, University of Strasbourg, INSERM U1114, Federation of Translational Psychiatry, Strasbourg, France: F. Berna, P. Vidailhet and A. Zinetti-Bertschy; University Department of Adult Psychiatry, La Colombiere Hospital, CHU Montpellier, University of Montpellier 1, Inserm 1061, Montpellier, France: D. Capdevielle, M André, T. Michel, A. Garbisson, C. Belmonte, T. Dubois; Department of Adult Psychiatry, Versailles Hospital, Le Chesnay, France; HandiRESP and Quality of Life Center, 27 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13005 Marseille, France Laboratory, EA4047, UFR Health Sciences Simone Veil, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-En-Yvelines, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France: S. Esselin, M. Jarroir, C. Passerieux, and M. Urbach.

Contributor Information

FACE-SZ (FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia) Groups:

F Berna, E Haffen, M Leboyer, P M Llorca, F Schürhoff, V Barteau, S Bensalem, O Godin, H Laouamri, K Souryis, M Leboyer, B Pignon, F Schürhoff, J Petrucci, G Wahiche, E Bourguignon, A Szöke, B Aouizerate, A Deloge, D Misdrahi, E Vilà, O Blanc, I Chéreau, H Denizot, R M Honciuc, D Lacelle, P M Llorca, S Pires, C Dubertret, J Mallet, C Portalier, N Coulon, M Faraldo, F Gabayet, S Leignier, C Roman, G Chesnoy-Servanin, T D’Amato, J M Dorey, R Rey, A Vehier, C Lançon, C Faget, E Metairie, P Peri, F Vaillant, L Boyer, G Fond, F Berna, P Vidailhet, A Zinetti-Bertschy, D Capdevielle, M André, T Michel, A Garbisson, C Belmonte, T Dubois, S Esselin, M Jarroir, C Passerieux, and M Urbach

Funding

This work was supported by AP-HP (Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris), Fondation FondaMental (RTRS Santé Mentale), by the Investissements d’Avenir program managed by the ANR under reference ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02 and ANR-10-COHO-10-01, and by INSERM (Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale). The funding source had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, preparation of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References

1. Leonhardt BL, Huling K, Hamm JA, et al. Recovery and serious mental illness: a review of current clinical and research paradigms and future directions. Expert Rev Neurother. 2017;17(11):1117–1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Jääskeläinen E, Juola P, Hirvonen N, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2013;39(6):1296–1306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Van Eck RM, Burger TJ, Vellinga A, Schirmbeck F, de Haan L. The relationship between clinical and personal recovery in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull. 2018;44(3):631–642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Van Eck RM, Burger TJ, Schenkelaars M, et al. The impact of affective symptoms on personal recovery of patients with severe mental illness. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2018;64(6):521–527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Tse S, Davidson L, Chung KF, Yu CH, Ng KL, Tsoi E. Logistic regression analysis of psychosocial correlates associated with recovery from schizophrenia in a Chinese community. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2015;61(1):50–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Chan RCH, Mak WWS, Chio FHN, Tong ACY. Flourishing With psychosis: a prospective examination on the interactions between clinical, functional, and personal recovery processes on well-being among individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Schizophr Bull. 2018;44(4):778–786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Dubreucq J, Gabayet F, Ycart B, et al. ; RemedRugby Group . Improving social function with real-world social-cognitive remediation in schizophrenia: results from the RemedRugby quasi-experimental trial. Eur Psychiatry. 2020;63(1):e41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Jahn DR, DeVylder JE, Drapalski AL, Medoff D, Dixon LB. Personal recovery as a protective factor against suicide ideation in individuals with schizophrenia. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2016;204(11):827–831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Dubreucq J, Plasse J, Gabayet F, et al. Stigma resistance is associated with advanced stages of personal recovery in serious mental illness patients enrolled in psychiatric rehabilitation [published online ahead of print, 2020b. Psychol Med. 2020;1–11. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720004055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Firmin RL, Zalzala AB, Hamm JA, Luther L, Lysaker PH. How psychosis interrupts the lives of women and men differently: a qualitative comparison. Psychol Psychother. 2020;94(3):704–720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Albert N, Bertelsen M, Thorup A, et al. Predictors of recovery from psychosis Analyses of clinical and social factors associated with recovery among patients with first-episode psychosis after 5 years. Schizophr Res. 2011;125(2-3):257–266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Álvarez-Jiménez M, Gleeson JF, Henry LP, et al. Road to full recovery: longitudinal relationship between symptomatic remission and psychosocial recovery in first-episode psychosis over 7.5 years. Psychol Med. 2012;42(3):595–606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Song LY. Predictors of personal recovery for persons with psychiatric disabilities: an examination of the unity model of recovery. Psychiatry Res. 2017;250:185–192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Dubreucq M, Plasse J, Gabayet F, et al. Sex differences in recovery-related outcomes and needs for psychiatric rehabilitation in people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2021;82(4):20m13732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Fervaha G, Agid O, Takeuchi H, Foussias G, Lee J, Remington G. Clinical and functional outcomes in people with schizophrenia with a high sense of well-being. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2015;203(3):187–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Haro JM, Novick D, Perrin E, Bertsch J, Knapp M. Symptomatic remission and patient quality of life in an observational study of schizophrenia: is there a relationship? Psychiatry Res. 2014;220(1-2):163–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Heering HD, Janssens M, Boyette LL, van Haren NE; G.R.O.U.P investigators . Remission criteria and functional outcome in patients with schizophrenia, a longitudinal study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015;49(3):266–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Gardsjord ES, Romm KL, Røssberg JI, et al. Is going into stable symptomatic remission associated with a more positive development of life satisfaction? A 10-year follow-up study of first episode psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2018;193:364–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Fond G, Boyer L, Berna F, et al. ; FACE-SZ (FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia) group . Remission of depression in patients with schizophrenia and comorbid major depressive disorder: results from the FACE-SZ cohort. Br J Psychiatry. 2018;213(2):464–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Fond G, Faugere M, Richieri R, et al. Depressive symptoms and chronic peripheral inflammation are associated with impaired functional remission in schizophrenia independently of psychotic remission. J Affect Disord. 2021;280(Pt A):267–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Schürhoff F, Fond G, Berna F, et al. ; FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia (FACE-SZ) collaborators . A National network of schizophrenia expert centres: an innovative tool to bridge the research-practice gap. Eur Psychiatry. 2015;30(6):728–735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Andreasen NC, Carpenter WT Jr, Kane JM, Lasser RA, Marder SR, Weinberger DR. Remission in schizophrenia: proposed criteria and rationale for consensus. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(3):441–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261–276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Startup M, Jackson MC, Bendix S. The concurrent validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Br J Clin Psychol. 2002;41(Pt 4):417–422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Nasrallah H, Morosini P, Gagnon DD. Reliability, validity and ability to detect change of the personal and social performance scale in patients with stable schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2008;161(2):213–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Lieberman RP, Kopelowicz A, Ventura J, Gutkind D. Operational criteria and factors related to recovery from schizophrenia. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2002;14:256–272 [Google Scholar]
27. Andresen R, Caputi P, Oades L. Stages of recovery instrument: development of a measure of recovery from serious mental illness. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006;40(11-12):972–980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Haro JM, Kamath SA, Ochoa S, et al. The clinical global impression-schizophrenia scale: a simple instrument to measure the diversity of symptoms present in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2003;107(416):16–23. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.107.s416.5.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Addington D, Addington J, Maticka-Tyndale E. Assessing depression in schizophrenia: the calgary depression scale. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1993;163(22):39–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Birchwood M, Smith J, Drury V, Healy J, Macmillan F, Slade M. A self-report insight scale for psychosis: reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1994;89(1):62–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Amador XFSD. The Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder. New York, NY: Columbia University and New York Psychiatric Institute; 1990 [Google Scholar]
32. Thompson K, Kulkarni J, Sergejew AA. Reliability and validity of a new Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) for the psychoses. Schizophr Res. 2000;42(3):241–247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Auquier P, Simeoni MC, Sapin C, et al. Development and validation of a patient-based health-related quality of life questionnaire in schizophrenia: the S-QoL. Schizophr Res. 2003;63(1-2):137–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Wechsler D. WAIS IV Nouvelle version de l’échelle d’intelligence de Weschler pour adultes. Paris: Edition de Centre de Psychologie Appliquée; 4th ed.; 2008 [Google Scholar]
35. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–1182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/2015 [Google Scholar]
37. Lysaker PH, Pattison ML, Leonhardt BL, Phelps S, Vohs JL. Insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: relationship with behavior, mood and perceived quality of life, underlying causes and emerging treatments. World Psychiatry. 2018;17(1):12–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Davis BJ, Lysaker PH, Salyers MP, Minor KS. The insight paradox in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of the relationship between clinical insight and quality of life. Schizophr Res. 2020;223:9–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Pignon B, Lajnef M, Godin O, et al. ; FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia (FACE-SZ) collaborators . Relationship between childhood trauma and level of insight in schizophrenia: a path-analysis in the national FACE-SZ dataset. Schizophr Res. 2019;208:90–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40. Kukla M, Lysaker PH, Salyers MP. Do persons with schizophrenia who have better metacognitive capacity also have a stronger subjective experience of recovery? Psychiatry Res. 2013;209(3):381–385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Best MW, Law H, Pyle M, Morrison AP. Relationships between psychiatric symptoms, functioning and personal recovery in psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2020;223:112–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Dubreucq J, Plasse J, Franck N. Self-stigma in serious mental illness: a systematic review of frequency, correlates, and consequences [published online ahead of print, 2021 Jan 18]. Schizophr Bull. 2021;sbaa181. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Macpherson R, Pesola F, Leamy M, et al. The relationship between clinical and recovery dimensions of outcome in mental health. Schizophr Res. 2016;175(1-3):142–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Law H, Shryane N, Bentall RP, Morrison AP. Longitudinal predictors of subjective recovery in psychosis. Br J Psychiatry. 2016;209(1):48–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Bird V, Leamy M, Tew J, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Slade M. Fit for purpose? Validation of a conceptual framework for personal recovery with current mental health consumers. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014;48(7):644–653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Roosenschoon BJ, Kamperman AM, Deen ML, Weeghel JV, Mulder CL. Determinants of clinical, functional and personal recovery for people with schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0222378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Tew J, Ramon S, Slade M, Bird V, Melton J, Le Boutillier C. Social factors and recovery from mental health difficulties: a review of the evidence. Br J Soc Work. 2012;42(3):443–460. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
48. Roe D, Mashiach-Eizenberg M, Lysaker PH. The relation between objective and subjective domains of recovery among persons with schizophrenia-related disorders. Schizophr Res. 2011;131(1-3):133–138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Fond G, Dubreucq J, Sunhary de Verville PL.. Health Disparities and Socioeconomic Status in Real-World Schizophrenia. A national FACE-SZ cohort study. In Press. [Google Scholar]
50. Fond G, Korchia T, Sunhary de Verville PL, et al. ; FACE-SZ (FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia) group* . Major depression, sleep, hostility and body mass index are associated with impaired quality of life in schizophrenia. Results from the FACE-SZ cohort. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:617–623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Morrison AP, Shryane N, Beck R, et al. Psychosocial and neuropsychiatric predictors of subjective recovery from psychosis. Psychiatry Res. 2013;208(3):203–209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Lysaker PH, Davis LW, Lightfoot J, Hunter N, Stasburger A. Association of neurocognition, anxiety, positive and negative symptoms with coping preference in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Schizophr Res. 2005;80(2-3):163–171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. Wykes T, Spaulding WD. Thinking about the future cognitive remediation therapy–what works and could we do better? Schizophr Bull. 2011;37Suppl 2:S80–S90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Austin SF, Mors O, Secher RG, et al. Predictors of recovery in first episode psychosis: the OPUS cohort at 10 year follow-up. Schizophr Res. 2013;150(1):163–168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Revier CJ, Reininghaus U, Dutta R, et al. Ten-year outcomes of first-episode psychoses in the MRC ÆSOP-10 Study. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2015;203(5):379–386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Valiente C, Espinosa R, Trucharte A, Nieto J, Martínez-Prado L. The challenge of well-being and quality of life: a meta-analysis of psychological interventions in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2019;208:16–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Dubreucq J, Ycart B, Gabayet F, et al. ; FACE-SZ (FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia) group . Towards an improved access to psychiatric rehabilitation: availability and effectiveness at 1-year follow-up of psychoeducation, cognitive remediation therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy and social skills training in the FondaMental Advanced Centers of Expertise-Schizophrenia (FACE-SZ) national cohort. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2019;269(5):599–610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Slade M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, et al. Development of the REFOCUS intervention to increase mental health team support for personal recovery. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;207(6):544–550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Meadows G, Brophy L, Shawyer F, et al. REFOCUS-PULSAR recovery-oriented practice training in specialist mental health care: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(2):103–114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Davidson L, Bellamy C, Guy K, Miller R. Peer support among persons with severe mental illnesses: a review of evidence and experience. World Psychiatry. 2012;11(2):123–128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Lysaker PH, Vohs J, Hasson-Ohayon I, Kukla M, Wierwille J, Dimaggio G. Depression and insight in schizophrenia: comparisons of levels of deficits in social cognition and metacognition and internalized stigma across three profiles. Schizophr Res. 2013;148(1-3):18–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Temesgen WA, Chien WT, Valimaki MA, Bressington D. Predictors of subjective recovery from recent-onset psychosis in a developing country: a mixed-methods study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020;55(9):1187–1199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Liu NH, Daumit GL, Dua T, et al. Excess mortality in persons with severe mental disorders: a multilevel intervention framework and priorities for clinical practice, policy and research agendas. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):30–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Korman N, Fox H, Skinner T, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of a student-led lifestyle (diet and exercise) intervention within a residential rehabilitation setting for people with severe mental illness, GO HEART (Group Occupation, Health, Exercise And Rehabilitation Treatment). Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Morgan VA, Waterreus A, Ambrosi T, et al. Mental health recovery and physical health outcomes in psychotic illness: longitudinal data from the Western Australian survey of high impact psychosis catchments. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2021;55(7):711–728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Bond GR, Drake RE, Becker DR. Generalizability of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model of supported employment outside the US. World Psychiatry. 2012;11(1):32–39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Modini M, Tan L, Brinchmann B, et al. Supported employment for people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence. Br J Psychiatry. 2016;209(1):14–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Gammelgaard I, Christensen TN, Eplov LF, Jensen SB, Stenager E, Petersen KS. ‘I have potential’: experiences of recovery in the individual placement and support intervention. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2017;63(5):400–406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Liu CH, Keshavan MS, Tronick E, Seidman LJ. Perinatal risks and childhood premorbid indicators of later psychosis: next steps for early psychosocial interventions. Schizophr Bull. 2015;41(4):801–816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Lysaker PH, Dimaggio G. Metacognitive capacities for reflection in schizophrenia: implications for developing treatments. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(3):487–491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Vohs JL, Leonhardt BL, James AV, et al. Metacognitive reflection and insight therapy for early psychosis: a preliminary study of a novel integrative psychotherapy. Schizophr Res. 2018;195:428–433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Thorup A, Albert N, Bertelsen M, et al. Gender differences in first-episode psychosis at 5-year follow-up–two different courses of disease? Results from the OPUS study at 5-year follow-up. Eur Psychiatry. 2014;29(1):44–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Longenecker J, Genderson J, Dickinson D, et al. Where have all the women gone?: participant gender in epidemiological and non-epidemiological research of schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2010;119(1-3):240–245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Charlson F, van Ommeren M, Flaxman A, Cornett J, Whiteford H, Saxena S. New WHO prevalence estimates of mental disorders in conflict settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):240–248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Shanks V, Williams J, Leamy M, Bird VJ, Le Boutillier C, Slade M. Measures of personal recovery: a systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(10):974–980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Lysaker PH, Dimaggio G, Daroyanni P, et al. Assessing metacognition in schizophrenia with the metacognition assessment scale: associations with the social cognition and object relations scale. Psychol Psychother. 2010;83(Pt 3):303–315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Li W, Yang Y, An FR, et al. Prevalence of comorbid depression in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Affect Disord. 2020;273:524–531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

sbab114_suppl_Supplementary_Table_1

Click here for additional data file.^{(271.1KB, docx)}

sbab114_suppl_Supplementary_Table_2

Click here for additional data file.^{(13.6KB, docx)}

[CIT0001] 1. Leonhardt BL, Huling K, Hamm JA, et al. Recovery and serious mental illness: a review of current clinical and research paradigms and future directions. Expert Rev Neurother. 2017;17(11):1117–1130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0002] 2. Jääskeläinen E, Juola P, Hirvonen N, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 2013;39(6):1296–1306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0003] 3. Van Eck RM, Burger TJ, Vellinga A, Schirmbeck F, de Haan L. The relationship between clinical and personal recovery in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull. 2018;44(3):631–642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0004] 4. Van Eck RM, Burger TJ, Schenkelaars M, et al. The impact of affective symptoms on personal recovery of patients with severe mental illness. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2018;64(6):521–527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0005] 5. Tse S, Davidson L, Chung KF, Yu CH, Ng KL, Tsoi E. Logistic regression analysis of psychosocial correlates associated with recovery from schizophrenia in a Chinese community. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2015;61(1):50–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0006] 6. Chan RCH, Mak WWS, Chio FHN, Tong ACY. Flourishing With psychosis: a prospective examination on the interactions between clinical, functional, and personal recovery processes on well-being among individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Schizophr Bull. 2018;44(4):778–786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0007] 7. Dubreucq J, Gabayet F, Ycart B, et al. ; RemedRugby Group . Improving social function with real-world social-cognitive remediation in schizophrenia: results from the RemedRugby quasi-experimental trial. Eur Psychiatry. 2020;63(1):e41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0008] 8. Jahn DR, DeVylder JE, Drapalski AL, Medoff D, Dixon LB. Personal recovery as a protective factor against suicide ideation in individuals with schizophrenia. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2016;204(11):827–831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0009] 9. Dubreucq J, Plasse J, Gabayet F, et al. Stigma resistance is associated with advanced stages of personal recovery in serious mental illness patients enrolled in psychiatric rehabilitation [published online ahead of print, 2020b. Psychol Med. 2020;1–11. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720004055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0010] 10. Firmin RL, Zalzala AB, Hamm JA, Luther L, Lysaker PH. How psychosis interrupts the lives of women and men differently: a qualitative comparison. Psychol Psychother. 2020;94(3):704–720. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0011] 11. Albert N, Bertelsen M, Thorup A, et al. Predictors of recovery from psychosis Analyses of clinical and social factors associated with recovery among patients with first-episode psychosis after 5 years. Schizophr Res. 2011;125(2-3):257–266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0012] 12. Álvarez-Jiménez M, Gleeson JF, Henry LP, et al. Road to full recovery: longitudinal relationship between symptomatic remission and psychosocial recovery in first-episode psychosis over 7.5 years. Psychol Med. 2012;42(3):595–606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0013] 13. Song LY. Predictors of personal recovery for persons with psychiatric disabilities: an examination of the unity model of recovery. Psychiatry Res. 2017;250:185–192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0014] 14. Dubreucq M, Plasse J, Gabayet F, et al. Sex differences in recovery-related outcomes and needs for psychiatric rehabilitation in people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2021;82(4):20m13732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0015] 15. Fervaha G, Agid O, Takeuchi H, Foussias G, Lee J, Remington G. Clinical and functional outcomes in people with schizophrenia with a high sense of well-being. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2015;203(3):187–193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0016] 16. Haro JM, Novick D, Perrin E, Bertsch J, Knapp M. Symptomatic remission and patient quality of life in an observational study of schizophrenia: is there a relationship? Psychiatry Res. 2014;220(1-2):163–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0017] 17. Heering HD, Janssens M, Boyette LL, van Haren NE; G.R.O.U.P investigators . Remission criteria and functional outcome in patients with schizophrenia, a longitudinal study. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015;49(3):266–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0018] 18. Gardsjord ES, Romm KL, Røssberg JI, et al. Is going into stable symptomatic remission associated with a more positive development of life satisfaction? A 10-year follow-up study of first episode psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2018;193:364–369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0019] 19. Fond G, Boyer L, Berna F, et al. ; FACE-SZ (FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia) group . Remission of depression in patients with schizophrenia and comorbid major depressive disorder: results from the FACE-SZ cohort. Br J Psychiatry. 2018;213(2):464–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0020] 20. Fond G, Faugere M, Richieri R, et al. Depressive symptoms and chronic peripheral inflammation are associated with impaired functional remission in schizophrenia independently of psychotic remission. J Affect Disord. 2021;280(Pt A):267–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0021] 21. Schürhoff F, Fond G, Berna F, et al. ; FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia (FACE-SZ) collaborators . A National network of schizophrenia expert centres: an innovative tool to bridge the research-practice gap. Eur Psychiatry. 2015;30(6):728–735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0022] 22. Andreasen NC, Carpenter WT Jr, Kane JM, Lasser RA, Marder SR, Weinberger DR. Remission in schizophrenia: proposed criteria and rationale for consensus. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(3):441–449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0023] 23. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261–276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0024] 24. Startup M, Jackson MC, Bendix S. The concurrent validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Br J Clin Psychol. 2002;41(Pt 4):417–422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0025] 25. Nasrallah H, Morosini P, Gagnon DD. Reliability, validity and ability to detect change of the personal and social performance scale in patients with stable schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2008;161(2):213–224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0026] 26. Lieberman RP, Kopelowicz A, Ventura J, Gutkind D. Operational criteria and factors related to recovery from schizophrenia. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2002;14:256–272 [Google Scholar]

[CIT0027] 27. Andresen R, Caputi P, Oades L. Stages of recovery instrument: development of a measure of recovery from serious mental illness. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006;40(11-12):972–980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0028] 28. Haro JM, Kamath SA, Ochoa S, et al. The clinical global impression-schizophrenia scale: a simple instrument to measure the diversity of symptoms present in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2003;107(416):16–23. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.107.s416.5.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0029] 29. Addington D, Addington J, Maticka-Tyndale E. Assessing depression in schizophrenia: the calgary depression scale. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1993;163(22):39–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0030] 30. Birchwood M, Smith J, Drury V, Healy J, Macmillan F, Slade M. A self-report insight scale for psychosis: reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1994;89(1):62–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0031] 31. Amador XFSD. The Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder. New York, NY: Columbia University and New York Psychiatric Institute; 1990 [Google Scholar]

[CIT0032] 32. Thompson K, Kulkarni J, Sergejew AA. Reliability and validity of a new Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) for the psychoses. Schizophr Res. 2000;42(3):241–247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0033] 33. Auquier P, Simeoni MC, Sapin C, et al. Development and validation of a patient-based health-related quality of life questionnaire in schizophrenia: the S-QoL. Schizophr Res. 2003;63(1-2):137–149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0034] 34. Wechsler D. WAIS IV Nouvelle version de l’échelle d’intelligence de Weschler pour adultes. Paris: Edition de Centre de Psychologie Appliquée; 4th ed.; 2008 [Google Scholar]

[CIT0035] 35. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–1182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0036] 36. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/2015 [Google Scholar]

[CIT0037] 37. Lysaker PH, Pattison ML, Leonhardt BL, Phelps S, Vohs JL. Insight in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: relationship with behavior, mood and perceived quality of life, underlying causes and emerging treatments. World Psychiatry. 2018;17(1):12–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0038] 38. Davis BJ, Lysaker PH, Salyers MP, Minor KS. The insight paradox in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of the relationship between clinical insight and quality of life. Schizophr Res. 2020;223:9–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0039] 39. Pignon B, Lajnef M, Godin O, et al. ; FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia (FACE-SZ) collaborators . Relationship between childhood trauma and level of insight in schizophrenia: a path-analysis in the national FACE-SZ dataset. Schizophr Res. 2019;208:90–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0040] 40. Kukla M, Lysaker PH, Salyers MP. Do persons with schizophrenia who have better metacognitive capacity also have a stronger subjective experience of recovery? Psychiatry Res. 2013;209(3):381–385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0041] 41. Best MW, Law H, Pyle M, Morrison AP. Relationships between psychiatric symptoms, functioning and personal recovery in psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2020;223:112–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0042] 42. Dubreucq J, Plasse J, Franck N. Self-stigma in serious mental illness: a systematic review of frequency, correlates, and consequences [published online ahead of print, 2021 Jan 18]. Schizophr Bull. 2021;sbaa181. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa181 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0043] 43. Macpherson R, Pesola F, Leamy M, et al. The relationship between clinical and recovery dimensions of outcome in mental health. Schizophr Res. 2016;175(1-3):142–147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0044] 44. Law H, Shryane N, Bentall RP, Morrison AP. Longitudinal predictors of subjective recovery in psychosis. Br J Psychiatry. 2016;209(1):48–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0045] 45. Bird V, Leamy M, Tew J, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Slade M. Fit for purpose? Validation of a conceptual framework for personal recovery with current mental health consumers. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014;48(7):644–653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0046] 46. Roosenschoon BJ, Kamperman AM, Deen ML, Weeghel JV, Mulder CL. Determinants of clinical, functional and personal recovery for people with schizophrenia and other severe mental illnesses: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0222378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0047] 47. Tew J, Ramon S, Slade M, Bird V, Melton J, Le Boutillier C. Social factors and recovery from mental health difficulties: a review of the evidence. Br J Soc Work. 2012;42(3):443–460. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0048] 48. Roe D, Mashiach-Eizenberg M, Lysaker PH. The relation between objective and subjective domains of recovery among persons with schizophrenia-related disorders. Schizophr Res. 2011;131(1-3):133–138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0049] 49. Fond G, Dubreucq J, Sunhary de Verville PL.. Health Disparities and Socioeconomic Status in Real-World Schizophrenia. A national FACE-SZ cohort study. In Press. [Google Scholar]

[CIT0050] 50. Fond G, Korchia T, Sunhary de Verville PL, et al. ; FACE-SZ (FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia) group* . Major depression, sleep, hostility and body mass index are associated with impaired quality of life in schizophrenia. Results from the FACE-SZ cohort. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:617–623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0051] 51. Morrison AP, Shryane N, Beck R, et al. Psychosocial and neuropsychiatric predictors of subjective recovery from psychosis. Psychiatry Res. 2013;208(3):203–209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0052] 52. Lysaker PH, Davis LW, Lightfoot J, Hunter N, Stasburger A. Association of neurocognition, anxiety, positive and negative symptoms with coping preference in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Schizophr Res. 2005;80(2-3):163–171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0053] 53. Wykes T, Spaulding WD. Thinking about the future cognitive remediation therapy–what works and could we do better? Schizophr Bull. 2011;37Suppl 2:S80–S90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0054] 54. Austin SF, Mors O, Secher RG, et al. Predictors of recovery in first episode psychosis: the OPUS cohort at 10 year follow-up. Schizophr Res. 2013;150(1):163–168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0055] 55. Revier CJ, Reininghaus U, Dutta R, et al. Ten-year outcomes of first-episode psychoses in the MRC ÆSOP-10 Study. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2015;203(5):379–386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0056] 56. Valiente C, Espinosa R, Trucharte A, Nieto J, Martínez-Prado L. The challenge of well-being and quality of life: a meta-analysis of psychological interventions in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2019;208:16–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0057] 57. Dubreucq J, Ycart B, Gabayet F, et al. ; FACE-SZ (FondaMental Academic Centers of Expertise for Schizophrenia) group . Towards an improved access to psychiatric rehabilitation: availability and effectiveness at 1-year follow-up of psychoeducation, cognitive remediation therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy and social skills training in the FondaMental Advanced Centers of Expertise-Schizophrenia (FACE-SZ) national cohort. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2019;269(5):599–610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0058] 58. Slade M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, et al. Development of the REFOCUS intervention to increase mental health team support for personal recovery. Br J Psychiatry. 2015;207(6):544–550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0059] 59. Meadows G, Brophy L, Shawyer F, et al. REFOCUS-PULSAR recovery-oriented practice training in specialist mental health care: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(2):103–114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0060] 60. Davidson L, Bellamy C, Guy K, Miller R. Peer support among persons with severe mental illnesses: a review of evidence and experience. World Psychiatry. 2012;11(2):123–128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0061] 61. Lysaker PH, Vohs J, Hasson-Ohayon I, Kukla M, Wierwille J, Dimaggio G. Depression and insight in schizophrenia: comparisons of levels of deficits in social cognition and metacognition and internalized stigma across three profiles. Schizophr Res. 2013;148(1-3):18–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0062] 62. Temesgen WA, Chien WT, Valimaki MA, Bressington D. Predictors of subjective recovery from recent-onset psychosis in a developing country: a mixed-methods study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020;55(9):1187–1199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0063] 63. Liu NH, Daumit GL, Dua T, et al. Excess mortality in persons with severe mental disorders: a multilevel intervention framework and priorities for clinical practice, policy and research agendas. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):30–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0064] 64. Korman N, Fox H, Skinner T, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of a student-led lifestyle (diet and exercise) intervention within a residential rehabilitation setting for people with severe mental illness, GO HEART (Group Occupation, Health, Exercise And Rehabilitation Treatment). Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0065] 65. Morgan VA, Waterreus A, Ambrosi T, et al. Mental health recovery and physical health outcomes in psychotic illness: longitudinal data from the Western Australian survey of high impact psychosis catchments. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2021;55(7):711–728. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0066] 66. Bond GR, Drake RE, Becker DR. Generalizability of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model of supported employment outside the US. World Psychiatry. 2012;11(1):32–39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0067] 67. Modini M, Tan L, Brinchmann B, et al. Supported employment for people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence. Br J Psychiatry. 2016;209(1):14–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0068] 68. Gammelgaard I, Christensen TN, Eplov LF, Jensen SB, Stenager E, Petersen KS. ‘I have potential’: experiences of recovery in the individual placement and support intervention. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2017;63(5):400–406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0069] 69. Liu CH, Keshavan MS, Tronick E, Seidman LJ. Perinatal risks and childhood premorbid indicators of later psychosis: next steps for early psychosocial interventions. Schizophr Bull. 2015;41(4):801–816. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0070] 70. Lysaker PH, Dimaggio G. Metacognitive capacities for reflection in schizophrenia: implications for developing treatments. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(3):487–491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0071] 71. Vohs JL, Leonhardt BL, James AV, et al. Metacognitive reflection and insight therapy for early psychosis: a preliminary study of a novel integrative psychotherapy. Schizophr Res. 2018;195:428–433. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0072] 72. Thorup A, Albert N, Bertelsen M, et al. Gender differences in first-episode psychosis at 5-year follow-up–two different courses of disease? Results from the OPUS study at 5-year follow-up. Eur Psychiatry. 2014;29(1):44–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0073] 73. Longenecker J, Genderson J, Dickinson D, et al. Where have all the women gone?: participant gender in epidemiological and non-epidemiological research of schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2010;119(1-3):240–245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0074] 74. Charlson F, van Ommeren M, Flaxman A, Cornett J, Whiteford H, Saxena S. New WHO prevalence estimates of mental disorders in conflict settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2019;394(10194):240–248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0075] 75. Shanks V, Williams J, Leamy M, Bird VJ, Le Boutillier C, Slade M. Measures of personal recovery: a systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(10):974–980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0076] 76. Lysaker PH, Dimaggio G, Daroyanni P, et al. Assessing metacognition in schizophrenia with the metacognition assessment scale: associations with the social cognition and object relations scale. Psychol Psychother. 2010;83(Pt 3):303–315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CIT0077] 77. Li W, Yang Y, An FR, et al. Prevalence of comorbid depression in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis of observational studies. J Affect Disord. 2020;273:524–531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Overlap and Mutual Distinctions Between Clinical Recovery and Personal Recovery in People With Schizophrenia in a One-Year Study

Julien Dubreucq

Franck Gabayet

Ophélia Godin

Myrtille Andre

Bruno Aouizerate

Delphine Capdevielle

Isabelle Chereau

Julie Clauss-Kobayashi

Nathalie Coulon

Thierry D’Amato

Jean-Michel Dorey

Caroline Dubertret

Mégane Faraldo

Hakim Laouamri

Sylvain Leigner

Christophe Lancon

Marion Leboyer

Pierre-Michel Llorca

Jasmina Mallet

David Misdrahi

Christine Passerieux

Romain Rey

Baptiste Pignon

Benoit Schorr

Mathieu Urbach

Franck Schürhoff

Andrei Szoke

Guillaume Fond

Fabrice Berna

Abstract

Introduction

Material and Methods

Study Population

Data Collected

Clinical Recovery

Personal Recovery

Full Recovery

Other Collected Data

Statistical Analysis

Results

Table 1.

Overlap and Mutual Distinctions Between Clinical and Personal Recovery at Baseline

Recovery in the FACE-SZ Network

Table 2.

Baseline Correlates of Stable Recovery After One-Year of Follow-up

Table 3.

Moderation/Mediation Analyses

Table 4.

Discussion

Main Findings

Interpretation of the Results

Overlap and Mutual Distinctions Between Clinical Recovery and Personal Recovery After One-Year of Follow-up

Clinical Implications

Limits

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments

Contributor Information

Funding

References

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases