4.4 Review

Predictors of functional recovery in first-episode psychosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

Journal

CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW
Volume 58, Issue -, Pages 59-75

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.007

Keywords

First-episode psychosis; Functioning

Funding

  1. Alicia Koplowitz Foundation (Spain)
  2. Endeavour Research Fellowship (Australia)
  3. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) [PSI 2011-23818]
  4. Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (MINECO) [PSI2016-79524-R]
  5. Australian Society for Mental Health Research (SMHR)
  6. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [APP1082934]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Three out of four first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients achieve clinical remission following treatment. Unfortunately, functional recovery lags behind symptomatic remission, and many individuals with FEP remain socially isolated with poor functional outcomes. Aims: To systematically compile and analyse predictors of functional recovery in FEP. Method: Systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed, longitudinal studies reporting predictors of functioning, with a minimum 12-month follow-up and at least 80% of participants diagnosed with FEP. Results: Out of 2205 citations, 274 articles were retrieved for detailed evaluation resulting in 50 eligible studies (N = 6669). Sociodemographic, clinical, physical and neuroimaging variables had little impact on long-term functioning. Conversely duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), most cognitive variables, and concurrent remission of positive and negative symptoms were independently related to functional recovery. Conclusions: These findings strongly support the rationale for early intervention in FEP. Novel treatments targeting cognitive deficits may improve functional outcomes in FEP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available