4.5 Article

The effects and determinants of exercise participation in first-episode psychosis: a qualitative study

期刊

BMC PSYCHIATRY
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-016-0751-7

关键词

Physical activity; Early intervention; Aerobic exercise; Resistance training; Recovery; Early psychosis; Community mental health; Rehabilitation

资金

  1. Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
  2. MRC PhD Studentship
  3. Medical Research Council [1354824] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previous qualitative studies have found that exercise may facilitate symptomatic and functional recovery in people with long-term schizophrenia. This study examined the perceived effects of exercise as experienced by people in the early stages of psychosis, and explored which aspects of an exercise intervention facilitated or hindered their engagement. Methods: Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with early intervention service users who had participated in a 10-week exercise intervention. Interviews discussed people's incentives and barriers to exercise, short-and long-term effects, and opinions on optimal interventions. A thematic analysis was applied to determine the prevailing themes. Results: The intervention was perceived as beneficial and engaging for participants. The main themes were (a) exercise alleviating psychiatric symptoms, (b) improved self-perceptions following exercise, and (c) factors determining exercise participation, with three respective sub-themes for each. Conclusions: Participants explained how exercise had improved their mental health, improved their confidence and given them a sense of achievement. Autonomy and social support were identified as critical factors for effectively engaging people with first-episode psychosis in moderate-to-vigorous exercise. Implementing such programs in early intervention services may lead to better physical health, symptom management and social functioning among service users.

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

4.5
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