↓ Skip to main content

Functional recovery in patients with schizophrenia: recommendations from a panel of experts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Functional recovery in patients with schizophrenia: recommendations from a panel of experts
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1755-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guillermo Lahera, José L. Gálvez, Pedro Sánchez, Miguel Martínez-Roig, J. V. Pérez-Fuster, Paz García-Portilla, Berta Herrera, Miquel Roca

Abstract

The management of schizophrenia is evolving towards a more comprehensive model based on functional recovery. The concept of functional recovery goes beyond clinical remission and encompasses multiple aspects of the patient's life, making it difficult to settle on a definition and to develop reliable assessment criteria. In this consensus process based on a panel of experts in schizophrenia, we aimed to provide useful insights on functional recovery and its involvement in clinical practice and clinical research. After a literature review of functional recovery in schizophrenia, a scientific committee of 8 members prepared a 75-item questionnaire, including 6 sections: (I) the concept of functional recovery (9 items), (II) assessment of functional recovery (23 items), (III) factors influencing functional recovery (16 items), (IV) psychosocial interventions and functional recovery (8 items), (V) pharmacological treatment and functional recovery (14 items), and (VI) the perspective of patients and their relatives on functional recovery (5 items). The questionnaire was sent to a panel of 53 experts, who rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was achieved in a 2-round Delphi dynamics, using the median (interquartile range) scores to consider consensus in either agreement (scores 7-9) or disagreement (scores 1-3). Items not achieving consensus in the first round were sent back to the experts for a second consideration. After the two recursive rounds, consensus was achieved in 64 items (85.3%): 61 items (81.3%) in agreement and 3 (4.0%) in disagreement, all of them from section II (assessment of functional recovery). Items not reaching consensus were related to the concepts of functional recovery (1 item, 1.3%), functional assessment (5 items, 6.7%), factors influencing functional recovery (3 items, 4.0%), and psychosocial interventions (2 items, 5.6%). Despite the lack of a well-defined concept of functional recovery, we identified a trend towards a common archetype of the definition and factors associated with functional recovery, as well as its applicability in clinical practice and clinical research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 10 8%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 37 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Neuroscience 7 6%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 46 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,218,436
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#834
of 5,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,901
of 343,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#28
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,951 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.