Cited by 28Mental Health and Patient InvolvementSchizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and Psychiatry

An Asian study on clinical and psychological factors associated with personal recovery in people with psychosis

Open access
Lim, Madeline, Li, Ziqiang, Xie, Huiting, Tan, Bhing Leet, Lee, Jimmy·2019·BMC Psychiatry

Abstract

Despite the rising recognition of personal recovery, there is a lack of research on personal recovery in individuals with psychosis in Singapore. This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the QPR-15 using the CHIME personal recovery framework and to examine its associations with clinical recovery factors. Sixty-six stable outpatients were recruited and assessed at two time points approximately 2 weeks apart. Convergent validity was examined through Spearman correlations with scores on CHIME-related psychological factors: connectedness (Ryff subscale- positive relations with others), hope (Herth Hope Index- abbreviated), identity (Ryff subscale- self-acceptance, Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness- Brief), meaning (World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment-Brief Form), empowerment (Empowerment Scale). Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the test-retest reliability, while Cronbach’s alpha was used to examine internal consistency. The initial factor structure was evaluated via principal component analysis, Velicer’s minimum average partial (MAP) criteria, parallel analysis, and a scree plot. Spearman correlations and hierarchical multiple linear regression (controlling for age and gender) were employed to examine the association of clinical (symptoms and functioning) and psychological factors with the QPR-15. The QPR-15 demonstrated convergent validity with all CHIME-related psychological factors (r s ranged from 0.472 to 0.687). Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.934), and test-retest reliability was adequate (r = 0.708). Initial factor structure evaluations revealed a one-factor model. Correlations of clinical factors with the QPR-15 were mostly low (r s ranged from − 0.105 to − 0.544) but significant, except for depressive symptoms (CDSS: r s = − 0.529 to − 0.544), while correlations were moderate for psychological factors. Clinical factors significantly explained 28.3–31.8% of the variance of the QPR-15. Adding psychological factors significantly increased the model variance at baseline (∆ adjusted R 2 = 0.369, F change < 0.001) and at time point 2 (∆ adjusted R 2 = 0.208, F change < 0.001). Our results provide preliminary evidence that the QPR-15 has adequate psychometric properties in Singapore and encompasses the CHIME personal recovery framework. In addition, our results suggest that clinical recovery and personal recovery are not substitutes for each other but rather are complementary, thereby promoting a more holistic evaluation of recovery in people with psychosis. Implications are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12888-019-2238-9

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 73 · Cited by 28

Authors
Lim, M., Li, Z., Xie, H., Tan, B. L., & Lee, J.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Mental Health (SG)
  • Singapore Institute of Technology (SG)
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
Corresponding author
Lee, Jimmy
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Published
2019-08-22
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
256-256
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2969309943
Cited by
28
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Medical Research Council (NMRC/CG/004/2013)
  • National Healthcare Group (NHG- CSCS/15007)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
personal recovery, psychosis, CHIME framework, psychometric properties, convergent validity, test-retest reliability, factor structure, connectedness, hope, identity, meaning, empowerment, depressive symptoms, Singapore, outpatients, scale development, internalized stigma of mental illness, self-acceptance, quality of life, meaning-making, social connectedness
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personal Satisfaction, Psychometrics, Psychotic Disorders, Quality of Life, Singapore, Reproducibility of Results, Recovery of Function, Asian People, Social Stigma, Hope

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