XXXX in @entity161 , schizoaffective and affective disorders 15 years after first admission.

@entity1 @entity1032 @entity161 @entity751 @entity717
BACKGROUND: Interest in social functioning of @entity1 suffering from @entity1032 has been increasing over the last few years. Only few studies have investigated differences in social functioning in affective, schizoaffective and @entity161 @entity1 in the long-term and in a comparative approach. METHOD: The present study is part of a 15 year follow-up study on @entity1 suffering from severe @entity1032 . The here reported findings refer to the data of a sample of 177 @entity1 with life-time diagnoses belonging to the @entity161 , schizoaffective or affective spectrum according to the ICD-10 criteria. Psychopathological, socio-demographic and other illness-related variables were assessed at the index hospitalisation and at the 15 year follow-up evaluation by using the assessment system published by the Association for Methodology and Documentation in Psychiatry (AMDP-system). Information about @entity1 ' @entity717 was assessed by using a modified and further developed version of the WHO disability assessment scale, the (Mannheim) Disability Assessment Schedule (DAS-M scale). Prevalence rates of @entity717 and differences in the severity of @entity717 between different groups of @entity1032 were evaluated. And the association between @entity717 , diagnoses and psychopathology was analysed. RESULTS: Compared to affective and schizoaffective @entity1 , @entity161 @entity1 showed significantly higher levels of @entity717 in almost all domains. Severe to very severe levels of disability were found in 64% of @entity161 @entity1 and only in 19% of schizoaffective @entity1 and 5% of affective @entity1 . However, on a descriptive level all three diagnostic groups presented with similar maxima and minima in their profiles of @entity717 . Multiple regression analyses revealed that the @entity751 had the highest impact on the presence of severe @entity717 with all other @entity751 , gender, age and diagnosis having no statistically significant influence. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that @entity1 ' disabilities in different diagnostic groups seem to be of a similar quality and nature despite differences in their severity. The impact of psychopathology on disability seems to be more important than the one of diagnosis per se.
