Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-pn7tm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-21T20:39:05.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Active treatment of affective disturbances may improve functional outcomes in patients in the early state of psychosis: Results of the PRONIA study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2025

Raimo K. R. Salokangas*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Julian Wenzel
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Tiina From
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Tuula Ilonen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Reetta-Liina Armio
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Heikki Laurikainen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Lauri Tuominen
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland University of Ottawa Institute of Mental Health Research, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Maija Walta
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Anne Ruef
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
Carolina Bonivento
Affiliation:
Scientific Institute, IRCCS E. Medea, Pasian di Prato, Udine, Italy
Dominic Dwyer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Paolo Brambilla
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosciences and Mental Health, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy Department of Pathophysiology and Mental Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Stephen Wood
Affiliation:
Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Rachel Upthegrove
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Institute for Mental Health University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
Stefan Borgwardt
Affiliation:
Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany
Eva Meisenzahl
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany
Marlene Rosen
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Theresa Lichtenstein
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Stephan Ruhrmann
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Christos Pantelis
Affiliation:
Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, University of Melbourne & Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Australia
Rebekka Lencer
Affiliation:
Translational Psychiatry Unit (TPU), Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany Institute for Translational Psychiatry, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany
Alessandro Bertolino
Affiliation:
Department of Translational Biomedicine and Neuroscience, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Bari, Italy
Frauke Schultze-Lutter
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany Department of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Airlangga University, Surabaya, Indonesia University Hospital of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Anita Riecher
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry (Psychiatric University Hospital, UPK), University of Basel, Switzerland
Joseph Kambeitz
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Lana Kambeitz-Ilankovic
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany
Nikolaos Koutsouleris
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry, Munich, Germany Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Department of Psychosis Studies, King’s College London, London, UK
Jarmo Hietala
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
*
Corresponding author: Raimo K. R. Salokangas; Email: raimo.k.r.salokangas@utu.fi

Abstract

Background and objectives

The functional outcome of patients with psychotic disturbances is associated with several overlapping premorbid, societal, neuropsychological, and clinical factors. Extracting the factors associated with functional outcomes is important for designing effective mental health interventions.

Methods

In a naturalistic prospective European multicentre study, we analysed the effects of sociodemographic, preadmission, admission, and postadmission precursors on functional outcomes in 296 patients with recent-onset psychosis (ROP) and 262 patients at clinically high risk of psychosis (CHR-P). Functioning was assessed with the Global Assessment of Functioning—symptoms and deficits version—at baseline and at the 9- and 18-month follow-ups.

Results

In the overall sample, male sex, childhood adversities, poor sociability, scholastic problems, neurocognitive deficits, and greater severity of baseline and follow-up symptoms were associated with poor functional outcomes. In contrast, a favourable work/educational situation and preadmission treatment for nonpsychotic disorders were associated with better functional outcomes. Among ROP patients, neurocognitive deficits and the severity of baseline and follow-up affective and psychotic symptoms were strongly associated with functional outcomes. Among CHR-P patients, premorbid sociability, previous treatment for affective disorders, and follow-up affective symptoms played more significant roles.

Conclusions

To improve functioning in patients in the early stages of psychosis, several factors should be considered, such as sex, childhood adversities, psychosocial development, baseline neurocognitive deficits, work/educational situation, clinical presentations, and follow-up symptoms. Personalized and integrated treatment and rehabilitation measures should be actively continued beyond the first admission period, with a particular focus on addressing both baseline and follow-up affective disturbances.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Psychiatric Association
Figure 0

Figure 1. Study design with assessments at baseline and follow-up points.

Figure 1

Table 1. Distribution of background and means (SD) of PAS and neuropsychological test dimension scores, CTQ, SIPS, medication, and GAFsd scores by diagnosis (recent onset of psychosis, ROP; clinical high risk of psychosis, CHR-P)

Figure 2

Table 2. Univariate general linear model repeated measures, main effects, for good follow-up functioning (GAFsdT0, GAFsdT1 and GAFsdT2) to each factor separately in all and in recent onset of psychosis (ROP) and clinical high risk (CHR-P) patients separately

Figure 3

Table 3. Multivariate general linear model repeated measures for good follow-up functioning (GAFsdT0, GAFsdT1, and GAFsdT2) in all and diagnostic groups separately, including follow-up symptoms

Figure 4

Figure 2. Functional outcome in univariate general linear model repeated measures of Global Assessment of Functioning, symptoms, and disability (GAFsdT0, GAFsdT1, and GAFsdT2) by current work situation in the whole sample (ROP and CHR-P). T0 = Baseline, T1 = 9 months follow-up, T2 = 18 months follow-up.Significance of differences:Not working versus Working (p = 0.026), Unemployed (p = 706), Unable to work (p = 0.003).Working versus Unemployed (p < 0.001), Unable to work (p < 0.001).Unemployed versus Unable to work (p = 0.001).

Supplementary material: File

Salokangas et al. supplementary material

Salokangas et al. supplementary material
Download Salokangas et al. supplementary material(File)
File 166.2 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.