Search

Schizophrenia is marked by inequities in cancer treatment and associated with high smoking rates. Lung cancer patients with schizophrenia may thus be at risk of receiving poorer end-of-life care compared to those without mental disorder. The objective was to compare end-of-life care delivered to patients with schizophrenia and lung cancer with patients without severe mental disorder. This population-based cohort study included all patients aged 15 and older who died from their terminal lung cancer in hospital in France (2014-2016). Schizophrenia patients and controls without severe mental disorder were selected and indicators of palliative care and high-intensity end-of-life care were compared. Multivariable generalized log-linear models were performed, adjusted for sex, age, year of death, social deprivation, time between cancer diagnosis and death, metastases, comorbidity, smoking addiction and hospital category. The analysis included 633 schizophrenia patients and 66,469 controls. The schizophrenia patients died 6 years earlier, had almost twice more frequently smoking addiction (38.1%), had more frequently chronic pulmonary disease (32.5%) and a shorter duration from cancer diagnosis to death. In multivariate analysis, they were found to have more and earlier palliative care (adjusted Odds Ratio 1.27 [1.03;1.56]; p = 0.04), and less high-intensity end-of-life care (e.g., chemotherapy 0.53 [0.41;0.70]; p < 0.0001; surgery 0.73 [0.59;0.90]; p < 0.01) than controls. Although the use and/or continuation of high-intensity end-of-life care is less important in schizophrenia patients with lung cancer, some findings suggest a loss of chance. Future studies should explore the expectations of patients with schizophrenia and lung cancer to define the optimal end-of-life care., (© 2020. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Patients with schizophrenia (SCZ) represent a vulnerable population who have been understudied in COVID-19 research. We aimed to establish whether health outcomes and care differed between patients with SCZ and patients without a diagnosis of severe mental illness. We conducted a population-based cohort study of all patients with identified COVID-19 and respiratory symptoms who were hospitalized in France between February and June 2020. Cases were patients who had a diagnosis of SCZ. Controls were patients who did not have a diagnosis of severe mental illness. The outcomes were in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. A total of 50 750 patients were included, of whom 823 were SCZ patients (1.6%). The SCZ patients had an increased in-hospital mortality (25.6% vs 21.7%; adjusted OR 1.30 [95% CI, 1.08-1.56], P = .0093) and a decreased ICU admission rate (23.7% vs 28.4%; adjusted OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.62-0.91], P = .0062) compared with controls. Significant interactions between SCZ and age for mortality and ICU admission were observed (P = .0006 and P < .0001). SCZ patients between 65 and 80 years had a significantly higher risk of death than controls of the same age (+7.89%). SCZ patients younger than 55 years had more ICU admissions (+13.93%) and SCZ patients between 65 and 80 years and older than 80 years had less ICU admissions than controls of the same age (-15.44% and -5.93%, respectively). Our findings report the existence of disparities in health and health care between SCZ patients and patients without a diagnosis of severe mental illness. These disparities differed according to the age and clinical profile of SCZ patients, suggesting the importance of personalized COVID-19 clinical management and health care strategies before, during, and after hospitalization for reducing health disparities in this vulnerable population., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Patients with schizophrenia represent a vulnerable, underserved, and undertreated population who have been neglected in health disparities work. Understanding of end-of-life care in patients with schizophrenia and cancer is poor. We aimed to establish whether end-of-life care delivered to patients with schizophrenia and cancer differed from that delivered to patients with cancer who do not have diagnosed mental illness., Methods: We did a population-based cohort study of all patients older than 15 years who had a diagnosis of advanced cancer and who died in hospital in France between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2016. We divided this population into cases (ie, patients with schizophrenia) and controls (ie, patients without a diagnosis of mental illness) and compared access to palliative care and indicators of high-intensity end-of-life care between groups. In addition to unmatched analyses, we also did matched analyses (matched in terms of age at death, sex, and site of primary cancer) between patients with schizophrenia and matched controls (1:4). Multivariable generalised linear models were done with adjustment for social deprivation, year of death, time from cancer diagnosis to death, metastases, comorbidity, and hospital type (ie, specialist cancer centre vs non-specialist centre)., Findings: The main analysis included 2481 patients with schizophrenia and 222 477 controls. The matched analyses included 2477 patients with schizophrenia and 9896 controls. Patients with schizophrenia were more likely to receive palliative care in the last 31 days of life (adjusted odds ratio 1·61 [95% CI 1·45-1·80]; p<0·0001) and less likely to receive high-intensity end-of-life care-such as chemotherapy and surgery-than were matched controls without a diagnosis of mental illness. Patients with schizophrenia were also more likely to die younger, had a shorter duration between cancer diagnosis and death, and were more likely to have thoracic cancers and comorbidities than were controls., Interpretation: Our findings suggest the existence of disparities in health and health care between patients with schizophrenia and patients without a diagnosis of mental illness. These findings underscore the need for better understanding of health inequalities so that effective interventions can be developed for this vulnerable population., Funding: Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Marseille and Aix-Marseille University., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The classification of patients into distinct categories of quality of life (QoL) levels may be useful for clinicians to interpret QoL scores from multidimensional questionnaires. The aim of this study had been to define clusters of QoL levels from a specific multidimensional questionnaire (SQoL18) for patients with schizophrenia by using a new method of interpretable clustering and to test its validity regarding socio-demographic, clinical, and QoL information., Methods: In this multicentre cross-sectional study, patients with schizophrenia have been classified using a hierarchical top-down method called clustering using unsupervised binary trees (CUBT). A three-group structure has been employed to define QoL levels as "high", "moderate", or "low". Socio-demographic, clinical, and QoL data have been compared between the three clusters to ensure their clinical relevance., Results: A total of 514 patients have been analysed: 78 are classified as "low", 265 as "moderate", and 171 as "high". The clustering shows satisfactory statistical properties, including reproducibility (using bootstrap analysis) and discriminancy (using factor analysis). The three clusters consistently differentiate patients. As expected, individuals in the "high" QoL level cluster report the lowest scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (p = 0.01) and the Calgary Depression Scale (p < 0.01), and the highest scores on the Global Assessment of Functioning (p < 0.03), the SF36 (p < 0.01), the EuroQol (p < 0.01), and the Quality of Life Inventory (p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Given the ease with which this method can be applied, classification using CUBT may be useful for facilitating the interpretation of QoL scores in clinical practice.

Beliefs about the causes of schizophrenia are thought to impact treatment outcomes. We investigated 3 theoretically opposing belief systems (biological, psychosocial, magical-religious) in relation to the severity of positive and negative symptoms and to attitudes towards medications. We recruited 253 patients with schizophrenia and their primary caregivers from public mental health clinics in Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. We assessed patients' and caregivers' beliefs about the causes of schizophrenia, which were used as predictors of symptom severity and medication attitudes in linear regression analyses. Patients' scores on biological, psychosocial, and magical-religious beliefs were positively correlated with one another, indicating that these domains were not, as anticipated, "opposing". Patients with higher levels of biological and psychosocial beliefs had significantly lower levels of positive and negative symptoms; in contrast, higher levels of magical-religious beliefs were associated with increased positive symptoms and less favorable attitudes towards medications. Patients' belief systems are significant predictors of symptom severity and medication attitudes. Research is needed on the extent to which psychotherapeutic treatments for schizophrenia should bolster patients' beliefs in the biological and psychosocial domains and weaken beliefs in the magical-religious domain; this research should also attend to the ethical considerations involved in intervening on belief systems cross-culturally., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Interpretation of quality of life (QoL) scores over time can be difficult because of possible changes in internal standards, values, and conceptualization of QoL by individuals. This effect is called a response shift (RS). The purpose of this study was to examine whether an RS effect occurred over a 24-mo period in patients who were suffering from schizophrenia., Methods: The random forest method was applied to detect any RS reprioritization in a multicenter cohort study. QoL was recorded using a generic questionnaire (SF36) at baseline (T0), 12 mo (T12), and 24 mo (T24). Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on psychotic symptoms and relapse (stable, improved, and worsened groups) from their clinical profiles. The random forest method was performed to predict the General Health score of the SF36 from the other QoL domain scores of the SF36. We estimated the average variable importance of the QoL domain for each of the 3 groups., Results: A total of 124 (53.2%) patients were defined as stable, 59 (25.3%) as improved, and 50 (21.5%) as worsened. Among the stable group, the Social Functioning domain became more important over time. Of those classified as improved, the Mental Health domain became more important over time, while the Vitality domain became less important. Among those in the group who worsened, the Mental Health domain became less important while the Vitality and Bodily Pain domains became more important., Conclusions: Our study identified differential RS reprioritization among patients with different clinical profiles. Further work is needed to determine whether RS should be interpreted as a measurement bias or as an effect integrated in a true change., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Background: The extent to which MS patients with cognitive dysfunction can accurately self-report outcomes has been a crucial issue. The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the relevance of the quality of life (QoL) assessment between two populations with a high occurrence of cognitive dysfunction, specifically in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) and in individuals suffering from schizophrenia (SCZ)., Design: A cross-sectional study was performed using the following inclusion criteria: MS and SCZ patients were diagnosed according to the McDonald criteria and DSM-IV criteria, respectively. Data on sociodemographic (age, gender, education level) and clinical (disease severity, disease duration) factors, QoL (disease-specific questionnaires, MusiQoL and SQoL) and cognitive performance (executive, memory, and attention functions) were collected. Non-impaired and impaired populations were defined according to the French norms. Psychometric properties were compared to those reported in reference populations, which were assessed in the respective validation studies. Suitability indices were provided used to quantitatively compare how the structures in the different populations matched with the initial structure of the questionnaires (reference populations)., Results: One hundred and twenty-four MS patients and 113 SCZ patients were enrolled. Factor analysis was performed on the impaired populations and revealed that the questionnaire structure adequately matched the initial structure of the disease-specific QoL questionnaires. All of the suitability indices of construct and external validity in the non-impaired populations ranged from 70 to 100%., Conclusions: Our study suggested that cognitive dysfunction did not compromise the reliability or validity of the self-reported QoL questionnaires among subjects with cognitive dysfunction, such as MS and SCZ. Thus, this report may clarify the relevance of using self-reported QoL assessments in clinical practice.

Objective: To provide new evidence regarding the suitability of using quality of life (QoL) measurements in homeless people with schizophrenia, we assess the acceptability and psychometric properties of a specific QoL instrument (S-QoL 18) in a population of homeless people with schizophrenia, and we compare their QoL levels with those observed in non-homeless people with schizophrenia., Methods: This multi-centre prospective study was conducted in the following 4 French cities: Lille, Marseille, Paris and Toulouse. Two hundred and thirty-six homeless patients with schizophrenia were recruited over a 12 month-period. The S-QoL 18 was tested for construct validity, reliability, external validity and sensitivity to change. The QoL of the 236 homeless patients was compared with 236 French age- and sex-matched non-homeless patients with schizophrenia., Results: The eight-factor structure of the S-QoL 18 was confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis (RMSEA = 0.035, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.99 and SRMR = 0.015). Internal consistency, reliability and sensitivity to change were satisfactory. External validity was confirmed via correlations between S-QoL 18 dimension scores and SF-36, symptomatology and recovery scores. The percentage of missing data did not exceed 5%. Finally, homeless patients had significantly lower QoL levels than non-homeless patients with schizophrenia., Conclusions: These results demonstrate the satisfactory acceptability and psychometric properties of the S-QoL 18, suggesting the validity of QoL measurement among homeless patients with schizophrenia. Our study also reported that QoL levels in homeless patients with schizophrenia were dramatically low, highlighting the need for new policies to eradicate homelessness and tackle poverty.

Background: The Scale to Assess Unawareness in Mental Disorder (SUMD) is widely used in clinical trials and epidemiological studies but more rarely in clinical practice because of its length (74 items). In clinical practice, it is necessary to provide shorter instruments. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the abbreviated version of the SUMD., Design: We used data from four cross-sectional studies conducted in several psychiatric hospitals in France., Inclusion Criteria: a diagnosis of schizophrenia based on DSM-IV criteria., Data Collection: socio-demographic and clinical data (including duration of illness, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and the Calgary Depression Scale); quality of life; SUMD., Statistical Analysis: confirmatory factor analyses, item-dimension correlations, Cronbach's alpha coefficients, Rasch statistics, relationships between the SUMD and other parameters. We tested two different scoring models and considered the response 'not applicable' as '0' or as missing data., Results: Five hundred and thirty-one patients participated in this study. The 3-factor structure of the SUMD (awareness of the disease, consequences and need for treatment; awareness of positive symptoms; and awareness of negative symptoms) was confirmed using LISREL confirmatory factor analysis for the two models. Internal item consistency and reliability were satisfactory for all dimensions. External validity testing revealed that dimension scores correlated significantly with all PANSS scores, especially with the G12 item (lack of judgement and awareness). Significant associations with age, disease duration, education level, and living arrangements showed good discriminant validity., Conclusion: The abbreviated version of the SUMD appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for measuring insight in patients with schizophrenia and may be used by clinicians to accurately assess insight in clinical settings.

Quality of life (QoL) is of great importance to patients with schizophrenia and their families. Although the use of QoL measures may contribute to better adherence to therapeutic interventions, more satisfaction with care, improved health outcomes and reduction of health costs, QoL assessment remains underutilized in clinical practice. In this review, the authors propose a reflection on the limitations and lack of impact of QoL measures in clinical care. Our argument is based on three challenges regarding conceptual aspects and metrics, use and limits and the usefulness of measuring QoL. For each challenge, the authors have suggested pragmatic proposals and new research directions to promote the use of QoL measures in the future. These avenues of research involve a shared responsibility between QoL researchers, the medical community and decision makers. Close collaboration between all parties is necessary to promote the use of QoL measures in schizophrenia.

The Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder (SUMD) is one of the most widely used instruments to measure insight into mental disorders. The aim of this study was to review all studies using the SUMD in the last 20 years. We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE using PubMed to identify all relevant studies published from 1993 to 2012. The following data were extracted from each article: characteristics of the SUMD (version, rating scale, scoring, and item/dimension used), methodological aspects (country, language, subject inclusion criteria, and sample size), and statistical methods to analyse insight. Of the 133 articles screened, 100 studies were included in the review. Fifty-two studies were published over the past five years. The SUMD was rarely used in its entirety, and the use of selected items or subscales was heterogeneous across studies. The studies also varied in terms of response modalities and in the use of 3- or 5-point Likert scales. The calculation of insight scores was highly variable and included the following: treating items as categorical or continuous variables, separate analysis of individual items, items expressed in terms of the sum total or the mean scores, and a range of score values used to define insight. This paper provides a systematic review of studies using the SUMD and reveals important differences in the versions used, the methods of calculation, and the interpretation of scores across studies. The use of a modified SUMD may compromise the psychometric properties of the scale, lead to erroneous conclusions, and prevents comparison of results across studies. Our review underlines the need for the standardised use of the SUMD.

Background: Quality of life (QoL) measurements are increasingly considered to be an important evaluation of the treatment and care provided to patients with schizophrenia. However, there is little evidence that assessing QoL improves patient outcomes in clinical practice., Aims: To investigate the impact of a QoL assessment with feedback for clinicians regarding satisfaction and other health outcomes in patients with schizophrenia., Method: We conducted a 6-month, prospective, randomised and controlled open-label study. Patients with schizophrenia were assigned to one of three groups: standard psychiatric assessment; QoL assessment with standard psychiatric assessment; and QoL feedback with standard psychiatric assessment. The primary outcome was patient satisfaction at 6 months. The local ethics committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Méditerranéee V, France, trial number 07 067) and the French drug and device regulation agency (Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé, France, trial number A01033-50) approved this study., Results: We randomly assigned 124 patients into groups. Quality of life feedback significantly affected patient satisfaction. Global satisfaction was significantly higher in the QoL feedback group (72.5% of patients had a high level of satisfaction) compared with the standard psychiatric assessment (67.5%) and QoL assessment groups (45.2%). Despite trends towards decreased severity for all clinical outcomes and increased changes to medication in the QoL feedback group at 6-month follow-up, these effects were not significant., Conclusions: Quality of life feedback positively influences patient satisfaction, which confirms the relevance of measuring QoL in clinical practice. The absence of a significant effect of QoL feedback on clinical outcomes also suggests that clinicians did not use these data optimally. Our findings suggest a nocebo effect of QoL assessment without feedback that should be considered by researchers and clinicians.

Background: Impaired executive functions are among the most widely observed in patients suffering from schizophrenia. The use of self-reported outcomes for evaluating treatment and managing care of these patients has been questioned. The aim of this study was to provide new evidence about the suitability of self-reported outcome for use in this specific population by exploring the internal structure, reliability and external validity of a specific quality of life (QoL) instrument, the Schizophrenia Quality of Life questionnaire (SQoL18)., Design: cross-sectional study., Inclusion Criteria: age over 18 years, diagnosis of schizophrenia according to the DSM-IV criteria., Data Collection: sociodemographic (age, gender, and education level) and clinical data (duration of illness, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia); QoL (SQoL18); and executive performance (Stroop test, lexical and verbal fluency, and trail-making test). Non-impaired and impaired populations were defined for each of the three tests. For the six groups, psychometric properties were compared to those reported from the reference population assessed in the validation study., Results: One hundred and thirteen consecutive patients were enrolled. The factor analysis performed in the impaired groups showed that the questionnaire structure adequately matched the initial structure of the SQoL18. The unidimensionality of the dimensions was preserved, and the internal/external validity indices were close to those of the non-impaired groups and the reference population., Conclusions: Our study suggests that executive dysfunction did not compromise the reliability or validity of self-reported disease-specific QoL questionnaire., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between inpatient satisfaction and health outcomes, quality of life, and adherence to treatment in a sample of patients with schizophrenia, while considering key sociodemographic and clinical confounding factors. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the psychiatric departments of two public university hospitals in France. The data collected included sociodemographic information, clinical characteristics, quality of life (using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey), nonadherence to treatment (Medication Adherence Report Scale), and satisfaction (a specific self-administered questionnaire based exclusively on patient point of view [Satispsy-22] and a generic questionnaire for hospitalized patients [QSH]). Multiple linear regressions were performed to assess the associations between satisfaction and quality of life and between satisfaction and nonadherence. Two sets of models were performed, ie, scores on the Satispsy-22 and scores on the QSH. Results: Ninety-one patients with schizophrenia were enrolled. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with better personal experience during hospitalization (Satispsy-22) had a better psychological quality of life (SF36-mental composite score, β=0.37; P=0.004), and patients with higher levels of satisfaction with quality of care (Satispsy-22) showed better adherence to treatment (Medication Adherence Report Scale total score, β=0.32; P=0.021). Higher QSH scores for staff and structure index were linked to better adherence with treatment (respectively, β=-0.33; P=0.019 and β=-0.30; P=0.032), but not with quality of life. Conclusion: Satisfaction was the only factor associated with quality of life and was one of the most important features associated with nonadherence. These findings confirm that satisfaction with hospitalization should not be neglected in clinical practice and that it may improve the management of patients with schizophrenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality of life (QoL) is of great importance to patients with schizophrenia and their families. Although the use of QoL measures may contribute to better adherence to therapeutic interventions, more satisfaction with care, improved health outcomes and reduction of health costs, QoL assessment remains underutilized in clinical practice. In this review, the authors propose a reflection on the limitations and lack of impact of QoL measures in clinical care. Our argument is based on three challenges regarding conceptual aspects and metrics, use and limits and the usefulness of measuring QoL. For each challenge, the authors have suggested pragmatic proposals and new research directions to promote the use of QoL measures in the future. These avenues of research involve a shared responsibility between QoL researchers, the medical community and decision makers. Close collaboration between all parties is necessary to promote the use of QoL measures in schizophrenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]