We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Employment and relationship are crucial for social integration. However, individuals with major psychiatric disorders often face challenges in these domains.
Aims
We investigated employment and relationship status changes among patients across the affective and psychotic spectrum – in comparison with healthy controls, examining whether diagnostic groups or functional levels influence these transitions.
Method
The sample from the longitudinal multicentric PsyCourse Study comprised 1260 patients with affective and psychotic spectrum disorders and 441 controls (mean age ± s.d., 39.91 ± 12.65 years; 48.9% female). Multistate models (Markov) were used to analyse transitions in employment and relationship status, focusing on transition intensities. Analyses contained multiple multistate models adjusted for age, gender, job or partner, diagnostic group and Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) in different combinations to analyse the impact of the covariates on the hazard ratio of changing employment or relationship status.
Results
The clinical group had a higher hazard ratio of losing partner (hazard ratio 1.46, P < 0.001) and job (hazard ratio 4.18, P < 0.001) than the control group (corrected for age/gender). Compared with controls, clinical groups had a higher hazard of losing partner (affective group, hazard ratio 2.69, P = 0.003; psychotic group, hazard ratio 3.06, P = 0.001) and job (affective group, hazard ratio 3.43, P < 0.001; psychotic group, hazard ratio 4.11, P < 0.001). Adjusting for GAF, the hazard ratio of losing partner and job decreased in both clinical groups compared with controls.
Conclusion
Patients face an increased hazard of job loss and relationship dissolution compared with healthy controls, and this is partially conditioned by the diagnosis and functional level. These findings underscore a high demand for destigmatisation and support for individuals in managing their functional limitations.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.