Cited by 51Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryMental Health and Patient Involvement

Remission as perceived by people with schizophrenia, family members and psychiatrists

Karow, A., Naber, D., Lambert, M., Moritz, S.·2012·European Psychiatry

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Studies indicate that patient-rated outcomes and symptomatic remission as defined by the remission in schizophrenia working group rely on different assumptions. The aim of this observational study was to assess symptomatic remission by patients with schizophrenia, family members and psychiatrists and to compare their assessments with standardized criteria and clinical measures. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-one patients with schizophrenia (DSM-IV), family members and psychiatrists assessed remission within the European Group on Functional Outcomes and Remission in Schizophrenia (EGOFORS) project. Symptoms (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale [PANSS]), functional outcome (Functional Recovery Scale in Schizophrenia [FROGS]), subjective well-being (SWN-K) and demographic characteristics were investigated. RESULTS: Remission assessed by psychiatrists showed the best accordance with standardized remission (80%), followed by remission assessed by family members (52%) and patients (43%). Only in 18%, patients, relatives and psychiatrists agreed in their assessments. Good subjective well-being was most important for remission estimated by patients, good subjective well-being and symptom reduction by family members, and finally better symptom scores, well-being and functioning by psychiatrists. DISCUSSION: Self- and expert-rated clinical outcomes differ markedly, with a preference on the patients' side for subjective outcome. Symptomatic remission as assessed by the standardized criteria plays a secondary role for patients and relatives in daily clinical practice. A more thorough consideration of patients' and caregivers' perspectives should supplement the experts' assessment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.01.013

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karow, A., Naber, D., Lambert, M., & Moritz, S.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Karow, A.
Venue
European Psychiatry
Published
2012-08
Volume
27
Issue
6
Pages
426-431
ISSN
0924-9338 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124093426
Cited by
51
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
schizophrenia, remission, patient-reported outcomes, subjective well-being, functional outcome, functional recovery, symptom relief, patient perspectives
MeSH terms
Adult, Family, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Perception, Personal Satisfaction, Pilot Projects, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychiatry, Quality of Life, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Severity of Illness Index, Antipsychotic Agents, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review