The relationship between clinical outcomes and quality of life in first‐episode mania: a longitudinal analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite growing attention to the relationship between bipolar disorder (BD) and quality of life (QoL), there remains a lack of information about QoL in the early stages of BD, and about the course of QoL in people with BD over time. Here, we report on QoL and symptomatic outcomes over a 1.5-year period in a Canadian sample of first-episode mania patients. METHODS: Patients (n = 63) with DSM-IV-TR BD type I recovering from a recent episode of mania were recruited from a university-based hospital setting in Vancouver, BC, Canada and assessed at six monthly intervals for 18 months. In addition to symptomatic and cognitive assessments, two self-report QoL scales [the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36)] were administered. RESULTS: Baseline QoL scores were high, with mean Q-LES-Q scores at 70% of the maximum possible score; QoL continued to show a trend towards improvement over time. Multiple hierarchical regressions were used to explore predictors of QoL over time, finding that: (i) length of illness and severity of depressive symptoms at baseline predicted Q-LES-Q scores at both baseline and six months; (ii) the number of previous depressive episodes and severity of depression at baseline and 12 months all predicted QoL at 12 months; and (iii) only severity of depressive symptoms at 12 months predicted QoL at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our observation that QoL in patients who have recently experienced an episode of mania can be relatively preserved offers hope, both for healthcare providers and for those newly diagnosed. Further, that severity of depressive symptoms even in the early stages of the disease was the consistent predictor of QoL suggests that depressive symptoms need to be aggressively treated to improve QoL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".