Outcome on quality of life in a Canadian national sample of patients with schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in subjective and objective dimensions of quality of life (QoL) in a large Canadian sample of patients with diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder treated in academic and non-academic settings over a 2-year period. METHOD: Patients recruited in the study across the country were assessed for QoL and functioning using the Client and Provider versions of the Wisconsin Quality of Life Questionnaire (WQoL) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) at baseline (n = 448), 1 year (n = 308-353) and 2 years (188-297). Data were analyzed to examine change across time using multivariate analyses controlling for potential influence of variables such as age, regional variation, gender, duration of illness, type of treatment taken and baseline measures of symptoms and QoL. RESULTS: The weighted quality of life index (W-QoL-I) showed a significant change on both the client and the provider versions of the WQoL while the physical and mental composites of the SF-36 showed change only at 2 years. These changes were influenced significantly by baseline scores on W-QoL-I and in the case of provider version of the WQoL by baseline Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) scores. Regional variation or type of medication had no impact on improvement in QoL. CONCLUSION: Within a naturalistic sample of schizophrenia patients treated and followed in routine care the overall QoL showed an improvement over time but this improvement was not influenced by the type of medication prescribed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".