The role of motivation in clinical presentation, treatment engagement and response in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizophrenia, a debilitating psychiatric disorder, has a long-term impact on social and occupational functioning. While negative symptoms, notably amotivation, are recognized as poor prognostic factors, the positive force of patient motivation (autonomous motivation) remains underexplored. This systematic review, guided by Self-Determination Theory (SDT), investigated the impact of motivation on clinical presentation, and treatment engagement and response in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Fifty-five independent studies (N = 6897), using 23 different motivation scales, met inclusion criteria. Results were categorized into cross-sectional and longitudinal correlates of autonomous motivation, and the effects of motivational interventions. Cross-sectionally, autonomous motivation was positively associated with social/occupational functioning, and negatively associated with negative and positive symptom severity. In longitudinal studies, baseline autonomous motivation predicted engagement in and response to social/occupational treatments, with mixed results in cognitive interventions. In the 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the most common motivational interventions were individualized goal setting and goal attainment support, followed by increasing sense of competence by challenging defeatist beliefs, and enhancing relatedness by increasing contact time. Motivational interventions consistently increased autonomous motivation, treatment engagement and response. More studies are needed, particularly studies that monitor motivation during treatment: proximal assessments could facilitate the identification of treatment elements that impact motivation and engagement and inform treatment modifications to enhance the patient experience and improve treatment efficacy.
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 | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".