4.1 Article

Influence of type of treatment on the well-being of Spanish patients with schizophrenia and their caregivers

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/13651501.2011.608469

关键词

Schizophrenia; caregivers; risperidone

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Health (FIS)
  2. Complutense University
  3. Autonoma University
  4. UNED
  5. Salamanca University
  6. Reunions i Ciencia
  7. IAS Girona
  8. AstraZeneca
  9. Almirall
  10. Janssen Cilag Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. This study aimed to investigate quality of life and burden on caregivers in Spanish outpatients with schizophrenia, treated with different antipsychotics. Methods. Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected for 1865 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. Patients answered the EuroQol-5D questionnaire and caregivers answered questionnaires assessing caregiver burden. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S), and clinician's satisfaction were also recorded. The same data were also collected at months 3 and 6. Results. According to EQ-5D results, usual activities (29.6%) and anxiety/depression (31.1%) were the most relevant reported problems. Good overall scores (5-7) on EQ-5D were reported by 47/118 (39.8%) of risperidone long-acting injectable (LAI) patients compared to 52/218 (23.9%) for oral conventional antipsychotics, 51/194 (26.2%) for injectable conventional antipsychotics, and 332/1110 (29.9%) for oral atypical antipsychotics. Significant benefits of risperidone LAI vs. other types of antipsychotic were also found in caregiver burden and clinician-derived outcome measures. At months 3 and 6, retention was >85%, and score on the EQ5D improved for the overall sample. Conclusions. In Spanish patients with schizophrenia, activities of daily living and anxiety/depression were more relevant reported problems. Risperidone LAI was associated with better quality-of-life outcomes and lower caregiver burden compared to other types of antipsychotic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据