Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

, Volume 46, Issue 8, pp 695–702 | Cite as

Association of treatment satisfaction and psychopathological sub-syndromes among involuntary patients with psychotic disorders

  • Michelle RichardsonEmail author
  • Christina Katsakou
  • Stefan Priebe
Original Paper



Previous research has shown a link between treatment satisfaction and global psychopathology in different groups of psychiatric patients. However, neither the relationship between treatment satisfaction and the sub-syndromes of global psychopathology nor their temporal ordering have been explored.


Participants admitted involuntarily to psychiatric wards in the UK and diagnosed with psychotic disorders (N = 232) were included. Treatment satisfaction and psychopathological sub-syndromes (i.e., manic excitement, anxiety-depression, negative symptoms, positive symptoms) were measured within 1 week and at 1 month after admission.


Repeated measures ANOVAs showed that higher treatment satisfaction is associated with lower scores on the manic excitement, anxiety-depression and positive symptom sub-syndromes, while no significant association was found for negative symptoms. However, cross-lagged panel analyses showed that treatment satisfaction predicted change only in positive symptoms while none of the paths from the relevant sub-syndromes to treatment satisfaction was significant.


Treatment satisfaction can be regarded as an antecedent of changes in positive symptoms only. These results underline the importance of examining psychopathological sub-syndromes separately as they may relate differentially to other important correlates of psychoses.


Treatment satisfaction BPRS sub-syndromes Psychoses 



We are grateful to all interviewed patients and staff of participating trusts. Funding for this study was provided by Policy Research Programme of the Department of Health, UK (Commission no. 0230072). The views expressed in the publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health, who had no further role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psych Bull 103:411–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bandalos DL, Finney SJ (2001) Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE (eds) New developments and techniques in structural equation modelling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 269–296Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bentler PM (2006) EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software, Inc, Encino, CA Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bjorngaard JH, Ruud T, Friis S (2007) The impact of mental illness on patient satisfaction with the therapeutic relationship. A multi level analysis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 42:803–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Britton PC, Williams GC, Conner KR (2008) Self-determination theory, motivational interviewing, and the treatment of clients with acute suicidal ideation. J Clin Psychol 64(1):52–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broker M, Rohricht F, Priebe S (1995) Initial assessment of hospital treatment by patients with paranoid schizophrenia: a predictor of outcome. Psychiatry Res 58:77–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burkholder GJ, Harlow LL (2003) An illustration of longitudinal cross-lagged design for larger structural equation models. SEM 10:465–486Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calsyn RJ, Morse GA, Klinkenberg WD, Lemming MR (2004) Client outcomes and the working alliance in assertive community treatment programmes. Care Manag J 5:199–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chue P (2006) The relationship between patient satisfaction and treatment outcomes in schizophrenia. J Psychopharmacol 20(suppl. 6):38–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenwood N, Key A, Burns T et al (1999) Satisfaction with in-patient psychiatric services: relationship to patient and treatment factors. Br J Psychiatry 174:159–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criterion for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. SEM 6:1–55Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kallert TW, Priebe S, McCabe R, Kiejna A, Rymaszewska J, Nawka P (2007) Are day hospitals effective for acutely ill psychiatric patients? A European Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial. J Clin Psychol Psychiatry 68:278–287Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Katsakou C, Priebe S (2006) Outcomes of involuntary hospital admission—a review. Acta Psychiatr Scand 114:232–241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katsakou C, Bowers L, Amos T, Morriss R, Rose D, Wykes T, Priebe S (2010) Coercion and treatment satisfaction among involuntary patients. Psychiatr Serv 61:286–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lachar D, Bailey SE, Rhoades HM, Espadas A, Aponte M, Cowan KA et al (2001) New subscales for an anchored version of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale: construction, reliability, and validity in acute psychiatric admission. Psychol Assess 13:384–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luszczynska A, Mazurkiewicz M, Ziegelmann JP, Schwarzer R (2007) Recovery self efficacy and intention as predictors of running or jogging behaviour: a cross-lagged panel analysis over a two-year period. J Sport Exerc Psychol 8:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marsh HW, Balla JR, McDonald RP (1998) Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psych Bull 103:391–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCabe R, Saidi M, Priebe S (2007) Patient-reported outcomes in schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 191(suppl 50):s21–s28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nuechterlein KH, Dawson ME, Ventura J, Gitlin M, Subotnik KL, Snyder KS, Mintz J, Bartzokis G (1994) The vulnerability/stress model of schizophrenic relapse: a longitudinal study. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl 382:58–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oliver J, Huxley P, Priebe S, Kaiser W (1997) Measuring the quality of life of severely mentally ill people using the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 32:76–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pitts SC, West SG, Tein J (1996) Longitudinal measurement models in evaluation research: examining stability and change. Eval Program Plann 19:333–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Phelan M, Slade S, Thornicroft G, Dunn G, Holloway F, Wykes T, Strathdee G, Loftus L, McCrone P, Hayward P (1995) The Camberwell assessment of need: the validity and reliability of an instrument to assess the needs of people with severe mental illness. Br J Psychiatry 167:589–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Priebe S, Gruyters T (1995) The importance of the first three days: predictors of treatment outcome in depressed inpatients. Br J Clin Psychol 34:229–236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Priebe S, Gruyters T (1994) Patients’ and caregivers’ initial assessments of day hospital treatment and course of symptoms. Compr Psychiatry 35:234–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Priebe S, Gruyters T, Heinze M, Hoffmann C, Jakel A (1995) Subjective criteria for evaluation of psychiatric care: methods for assessment in research and routine care. Psychiatr Praxis 22:40–144Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Priebe S, Katsakou C, Amos T, Leese M, Morriss R, Rose D, Wykes T, Yeeles K (2009) Patients’ views and readmissions 1 year after involuntary hospitalisation. Br J Psychiatry 194:49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (1986) Toward a comprehensive model of change. In: Miller WR, Heather N (eds) Addictive behaviors: processes of change. Plenum Press, New York, pp 3–27Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rapport F, Jerzembek G, Doelm M, Jones A, Cella M, Lloyd K (2010) Narrating uncertainties about treatment of mental health conditions. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 45(3):371–379Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reininghaus U, McCabe R, Burns T, Croudace T, Priebe S (2010) Measuring patients’ views: a bi-factor model of distinct patient-reported outcomes in psychosis. Psychol Med 21:1–13Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ruggeri M, Koeter M, Schene A, Bonetto C, Vàzquez-Barquero J, Becker T, Knapp M, Knudsen H, Tansella M, Thornicroft G (2005) Factor solution of the BPRS-expanded version in schizophrenic outpatients living in five European countries. Schizophr Res 75:107–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ryan RM, Deci EL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 55:68–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shafer A (2005) Meta analysis of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Factor Structure. Psychol Assess 17:324–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shiva A, Haden SC, Brooks J (2009) Psychiatric civil and forensic inpatient satisfaction with care: the impact of provider and recipient characteristics. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 11:979–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Van der Does AJ, Dingemans PM, Linszen DH, Nugter MA, Scholte WF (1995) Dimensions and subtypes of recent-onset schizophrenia: a longitudinal analysis. J Nerv Ment Dis 183:681–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ventura J, Lukoff D, Nuechterlein KH, Liberman RP, Green MF, Shaner A (1993) Manual for the expanded brief psychiatric rating scale. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 3:227–243Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Richardson
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Christina Katsakou
    • 1
  • Stefan Priebe
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, Barts and the London School of MedicineQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Unit for Social and Community PsychiatryNewham Centre for Mental HealthLondonUK

Personalised recommendations