Perceived Quality of Life in Patients with Bipolar Disorder. Does Group Psychoeducation Have an Impact?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A large body of research has now accumulated concerning quality of life (QoL) for patients with major depressive disorder, both in terms of describing levels of well-being and in terms of assessing the impact of treatment interventions. However, there is little information concerning QoL for patients with bipolar disorder (BD), and there is relatively little published evidence concerning the effectiveness of psychological interventions for BD. We aimed to assess the impact of a time-limited psychoeducation (PE) group therapy upon perceived QoL among patients with BD. METHOD: Participants were patients (n = 57) with BD type I or II who were clinically described as euthymic or mildly symptomatic. Treatment intervention was a standardized, 8-week group PE course delivered in a mood disorders program in British Columbia, Canada. Using retrospective chart review and the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q), we assessed QoL at baseline and at 8 weeks. RESULTS: Mean baseline Q-LES-Q scores were 56%, representing moderate impairment in QoL. Group PE was associated with a 5-point increase in Q-LES-Q scores (where higher scores indicate better QoL). Examination of the questionnaire's subscales revealed that 2 domains (that is, physical functioning and general satisfaction) increased significantly following PE, with the remaining domains showing nonsignificant trends toward improved functioning. Multivariate analysis indicated that only one factor (having had a recent episode of depression) significantly predicted pre- and posttreatment Q-LES-Q scores. CONCLUSION: Patients with BD continue to show impaired QoL even when clinically euthymic. Although preliminary, our results show that group PE is associated with improved QoL in this population, both in terms of general satisfaction and in relation to levels of physical functioning. The use of PE as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy in BD should be further studied with particular emphasis on characterizing the effects of treatment intervention on perceived 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".