IntroductionPrevious research suggests that motivational factors relate to psychosocial functioning in SZ, both concurrently (Tobe et al. Compr Psychiat 2016; 65 103-109) and at follow-up (Fervaha et al. Acta Psychiat Scand 2014; 130 290-299). Importantly, no study has examined the influence of baseline motivation on the rate of change in response to rehabilitation
ResultsFigures 1 and 2 show individuals slopes for PSP and FAST, with a thick red line representing the average group slopes. For both PSP and FAST, models with only time as the independent variable and random intercepts indicated that time was a significant predictor (PSP: t=10.65, p<.0001; FAST: t =-6.13, p<.0001).
Baseline motivation/ effort → follow-up psychosocial functioning
No significant correlations were found for neither PSP scores (QLS: ρ=-.018, S=2343.3, p=.93, IMI: P=.23, t=1.09, p=.28, effort: ρ=.001, S=2297.3, p=.99) nor FAST scores (QLS: ρ=-.16, S=2674.9, p=.45, IMI: P=-.02, t=-0.09, p=.92, effort: ρ=.07, S=2128, p=.72).
Motivation → change in psychosocial functioning
For PSP, the interaction model (Table 2) shows that the interaction of effort and timepoint significantly predicts PSP scoresVariable | Frequency | Mean/ percentage | Standard deviation |
---|
Age | 30 | 40.97 | 12.9 |
Gender | 30 | | |
Male | 19 | 63% | |
Female | 11 | 37% | |
Years of Education | 24 | 11.42 | 3.06 |
Diagnosis | 30 | | |
… Schizophrenia | 23 | 73% | |
… Schizoaffective disorder | 7 | 23% | |
Figure 1. Individual slopes for PSP scores
Figure 2. Individual slopes for FAST scores
Image:

Image 2:

Image 3:

ConclusionsPatients showed an improvement after rehabilitation. Effort can explain this trend. Finally, unlike previous studies, basal motivation did not predict follow-up psychosocial functioning