56 Chapter 3 A linear regression analysis was performed to investigate the additive predictive values of severity of different symptom domains on personal recovery. BPRS-E subscales were consecutively entered to the regression model in the following order: affective symptoms, negative symptoms and lastly positive symptoms. This analysis showed that 35.1% of the variance of overall personal recovery was explained by affective symptom severity. Negative symptom severity did not significantly add to the model, whereas positive symptoms showed a trend (p=0.065) of significance by explaining an additional 2.1% of variance in personal recovery (see Table 4). Subsequently, the possible confounders age, gender, diagnosis, country of origin, housing status, neighbourhood, marital status, legal status and treatment status were entered. Only diagnosis was found to have a significant predictive value, ΔF (1,103) = 10.385, p=0.002. When including interaction effects between BPRS symptom domains and diagnosis, analyses revealed a significant interaction effect with affective symptoms (p=0.047), showing a stronger association between personal recovery and affective symptoms in patients with a non-psychotic disorder (see supplement figure 1). Table 4: Multiple linear regression with affective, negative and positive symptoms (BPRS-E) as predictors of personal recovery (MHRM) in the total sample. Predictor β R2 change F change p BPRS-E affective -0.592 0.351 55.686 0.000** BPRS-E negative -0.118 0.014 2.187 0.142 BPRS-E positive 0.160 0.021 3.469 0.065 **: significant at the 0.001 level BPRS-E = Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; MHRM = Mental Health Recovery Measure To account for this effect, we separately assessed the association between symptom domains and personal recovery in the sample of patients with a psychotic (schizophrenia spectrum) disorder (n=71) and in the non-psychotic group, including patients with a primary diagnosis of a bipolar disorder, chronic depression, personality disorder, autism spectrum disorder or addiction (n=34). Analyses in the psychosis group showed that 20.7% of the variance of personal recovery was explained by affective symptom severity, ΔF (1,69) = 17,987, p=0.000. Negative symptoms showed a significant trend by explaining 3.9% of the variation in personal recovery, ΔF (1,68) = 3.543, p=0.064. Positive symptoms did not significantly contribute to personal recovery, ΔF (1,67) = 0.245, p=0.622. In the non-psychotic group analyses showed that 60.4% of the variance of personal recovery was explained by affective symptom severity, ΔF (1,32) = 48.812, p=0.000.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw