Disability among patients with schizophrenia: A hospital-based study

Abstract

Background:

Schizophrenia has been described as the most disabling mental disorder, and patients with schizophrenia have been said to be disabled mostly in self-care, occupation, sexual relation and social relationship domains. Previous authors have studied disability among this study population. However, the limitations of these previous works include non-report of the prevalence rates of disability, report on disability limited to only a particular domain of life and the utilization of disability instruments fraught with significant weaknesses.

Aim:

To determine the prevalence, severity, domains and correlates of disability among outpatients with schizophrenia at the Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Aro, Abeokuta in Ogun State, Nigeria.

Methods:

It was a cross-sectional study conducted among three hundred consenting adult outpatients with schizophrenia attending the Neuropsychiatric Hospital, Aro, Abeokuta, Ogun State. Each participant was interviewed with the sociodemographic questionnaire, Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the 36-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule.

Results:

The prevalence of disability was 78% (with 22% having no disability in any of the domains). Most were disabled in the mild to moderate range. Seventy-seven percent (77%) had mild to moderate disability while only 1% had severe disability. Excluding those free of disability, 98.7% of those with disability had mild to moderate form while only 1.3% had severe form. Highest prevalence rates for disability were reported in the ‘participation in society’ and ‘getting along’ domains while the lowest rates were reported in the ‘activities’ (household, work, school) and ‘self-care’ domains. Of all the sociodemographic and clinical variables explored, only the PANSS positive, negative and total scores demonstrated significant relationships with disability.

Conclusion:

Consistent with existing literature, disability is very prevalent among patients with schizophrenia and it is associated with higher levels of illness severity. Clinicians have a role in limiting disability by focusing on early and comprehensive treatment approaches.

Keywords

Schizophrenia prevalence of disability pattern of disability severity of disability domains of disability Nigeria

Introduction

Disability has been described as any condition of the body or mind (impairment) that makes it more difficult for the person with the condition to do certain activities (activity limitation) and interact with the world around them—participation restrictions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). The World Health Organization (WHO, 2018) also defined disability as an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. An impairment is a problem in body function or structure, an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action, while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations (WHO, 2018). In other words, disability encompasses more than physical limitations or handicap. Measures of disability are necessary for understanding the impact of disease conditions in the life of the sufferers (WHO, 2011). Various assessment tools for measuring disability exist (Cocchiarella, 2017), and this includes Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule (Wiersma et al., 1988), Schedule for Assessment of Psychiatric Disability (Valecha et al., 1988), Indian Disa-bility Evaluation and Assessment Scale (Thara, 2005), Brief Disability Questionnaire (Naismith et al., 2007) and World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO, 2014) among others. Usually, the identification of the weaknesses of an instrument necessitates development of a subsequent one (Chandrashekar et al., 2010). The prevalence of disability accompanying illnesses varies with higher rates reported in chronic illnesses (Bhattacharya et al., 2008).

Studies have shown that patients with schizophrenia have disabilities compared with their healthy counterparts (Akinsulore et al., 2015). In fact, schizophrenia has been described as the most maximally disabling of all mental disorders (Thaker & Carpenter, 2001). It is one of the top 10 medical disorders causing disability (Chaudhury et al., 2006), the sixth leading cause of years lived with disability (Murray & Lopez, 1997) and accounts for about 12.3% of the global disease burden (Narayan & Kumar, 2012). The prevalence of disability in Schizophrenia differs depending on the aspect of disability that is being assessed and the nature of the instrument used. Among this study population, rates such as 50% (Bland & Orn, 1978), 83% (Wiersma et al., 2000) and 100% (Solanki et al., 2010) have been reported by various authors.

Among patients with schizophrenia, most authors have noted a consistent pattern of disability in self-care, occupation, sexual relations and social relationships domains (Alptekin et al., 2005). Disability in these areas has been attributed to neurocognitive deficits (Harvey & Strassing, 2012), the latter being largely responsible for the burden experienced by the caregivers of these patients (Carpenter & Andrykowski, 1998). Factors associated with disability in schizophrenia include insidious onset of symptoms (Picchioni & Murray, 2007), negative symptomatology (Villalta-Gil et al., 2006), neurocognitive dysfunction (Green, 2006), side effects of medications (Harvey & Strassing, 2012), male gender (Liu et al., 2015) and poor premorbid functioning (Brill et al., 2009).

Although quite a number of studies had been done to assess disability among patients with schizophrenia in both developing and developed countries, African studies on this subject are few. Also, some of the previous studies on this subject have been fraught with some limitations. For instance, some of these works (Akinsulore et al., 2015; Ali, 2009; Gureje & Bamidele, 1999; Kumar et al., 2015; Olagunju et al., 2016; Thirthalli & Kumar, 2012) did not report the actual prevalence of disability among the study participants. Also, some authors assessed only a specific aspect or form of disability while some other authors utilized disability instruments which have been found to have significant limitations. Gureje and Bamidele (1999) assessed social disability only while Alptekin et al (2005) assessed more of physical disability. The culture-bias limitation of the Disability Assessment Schedule has been documented in literature (Valecha et al., 1988) while the Brief Disability Questionnaire used by Alptekin et al. (2005) has been shown to reflect more of physical disability or handicap. Another rationale for this current work is the ambiguity in which the results were derived in some studies in spite of the use of reliable and comprehensive instruments. An example of this can be seen in the work of Akinsulore et al. (2015) where ‘corrected’ summary scores (as advocated by the authors of the 36-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule version 2.0) were not used in the computation of disability.

Therefore, the aims of this study were to determine the prevalence, severity, domains and correlates of disability among outpatients with schizophrenia.

Materials and methods

It is a cross-sectional study which was conducted among outpatients with schizophrenia attending the Neuropsy-chiatric Hospital, Aro, Abeokuta, Ogun State. The inclusion criteria for participants were subjects aged between 18 and 64 years, having an ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision) diagnosis of schizophrenia and having been a patient of the hospital for at least one-year period. Exclusion criteria include inability to understand neither Yoruba nor English language, having an obvious physical handicap or having a case note diagnosis of learning disability. Consecutive patients who met the study criteria were recruited for the study till the desired sample size of 300 was obtained.

Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Neuropsychiatric Hospital Aro Health Research Ethics Committee prior to the commencement of the study. Only individuals who gave their consent were recruited for the study. The participants were guaranteed of confidentiality of their responses and the freewill to withdraw from the study at any point in time.

Each participant was interviewed with

Sociodemographic questionnaire: This was used to obtain the sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, educational status) as well as the clinical information (illness duration, family history of mental illness) of the patient.

Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview: This is a short, structured clinical interview which is used to make psychiatric diagnosis according to the International Classification of Diseases. It has been widely used among Nigerians and was used to confirm the diagnosis of schizophrenia in the study participants.

Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS): This is a 30-item, 7-point rating instrument which rates the positive (seven items) and negative (seven items) symptoms of schizophrenia as well as general psychopathology (16 items). It has been used extensively in Nigeria and was utilized in this work to assess the severity of psychosis. The overall score ranges from 30 to 210.

World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule version 2.0: This 36-item instrument assesses the level of functioning in six domains: cognition, mobility, self-care, getting along with others, household/work activities and participation in society. It was used in this study to assess the presence as well as severity of disability among the respondents.

All the instruments were translated into the Yoruba version for the benefit of the non-English speaking respondents. This was done by bilingual experts through iterative back translation.

Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 16. Nominal data from qualitative variables were expressed as percentages of the total while continuous data of numerical variables were expressed in means (and standard deviations). Bivariate analysis (chi-square) was done to determine the relationship between presence/absence of disability with sociodemographic (gender, age, educational status and employment status) and clinical (age at illness onset, illness duration, history of previous hospitalization, class of antipsychotic currently in use, current experience of medication side-effects and severity of psychosis) variables. The tests were significant at a p-value of .05. The variables which demonstrated significance in the tests of association (PANSS positive, PANSS negative) were entered as predictor variables into a multivariate binary logistic regression model with ‘disability’ treated as the outcome. PANSS total scores were excluded from the model to avoid multicollinearity among scores. The derived logistic regression odd ratios were interpreted appropriately. All tests were considered significant at p < .05.

Results

Sociodemographic profile of participants

There was an almost equal representation of both genders in the sample. Most (95%) of the respondents were below 60 years of age and of Yoruba tribe (92.7%). About one-third (30.7%) were currently living with their spouses, and a similar proportion (32.7%) had at least tertiary level of education. About a third of the sample population (33.3%) was unemployed and among those employed, none was occupying a managerial role at his or her workplace (Table 1). The averages of the various clinical parameters such as the age at illness onset, duration of untreated psychosis and PANSS scores are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic and some clinical characteristics (categorical data) of the patients.

Variables	Number	%
Gender
Male	148	49.3
Female	152	50.7
Age
20–29	29	9.7
30–39	107	35.6
40–49	89	29.7
50–59	60	20.0
60–69	15	5.0
Ethnicity
Yoruba	278	92.7
Other tribes	22	7.3
Religion
Christianity	223	74.4
Islam	76	25.3
Trado-African	1	0.3
Marital status
Single	119	39.7
Married	92	30.7
Separated/divorced	66	22.0
Widowed	23	7.6
Highest educational status
None	16	5.3
Primary	56	18.7
Secondary	130	43.3
Tertiary & postgraduate	98	32.7
Employment status
Unemployed	100	33.3
Student/apprentice	24	8.0
Employed	168	56.0
Retired	8	2.7
Occupational categories
Unemployed	100	33.3
Student/apprentice	24	8.0
Managers	–	–
Professionals, technicians & associate professionals	36	12.0
Other occupations	132	44.0
Retired	8	2.7
History of previous hospitalization
Yes	148	49.3
No	152	50.7
Experiencing extrapyramidal side-effects of medications currently
Yes	48	16.0
No	252	84.0
Co-morbid medical illness
Yes	45	15.0
No	255	85.0

Table 2.

Some clinical characteristics of participants (continuous data only).

Variables	M ± SD
Age at illness onset (years)	28.4 ± 8.5
Total illness duration (years)	13.5 ± 8.6
Duration of untreated psychosis (weeks)	187.03 ± 155.05
Number of episodes	2.6 ± 1.0
Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores
Positive subscale	8.73 ± 3.67
Negative subscale	8.52 ± 3.82
General subscale	16.60 ± 2.73
Total	33.85 ± 8.27

Prevalence, severity and domains of disability

Table 3 shows the overall prevalence of disability in this sample was 78.0%. Most (77.0%) had disability in the mild to moderate range. Percentages of those with various domains of disability were calculated with reference to those with disability (i.e. 234 was used as the denominator). Few people (1.3%) reported disability in the ‘work/school activities’ domain while most people (69.7%) experienced disability in the ‘societal participation’ domain.

Table 3.

Prevalence, severity and domains of disability.

Variables	Number	%
Levels of disability (overall)
No disability	66	22.0
Mild/moderate disability	231	77.0
Severe/extreme disability	3	1.0
Domain 1 (Cognition)
No disability	288
Mild/moderate disability	10	4.3
Severe/extreme disability	2	0.9
Domain 2 (Mobility)
No disability	288
Mild/moderate disability	11	4.7
Severe/extreme disability	1	0.4
Domain 3 (Self-care)
No disability	293
Mild/moderate disability	3	1.3
Severe/extreme disability	4	1.7
Domain 4 (Getting along)
No disability	243
Mild/moderate disability	10	4.3
Severe/extreme disability	47	20.1
Domain 51 (Household activities)
No disability	294
Mild/moderate disability	5	2.1
Severe/extreme disability	1	0.3
Domain 52 (Work/school activities)
No disability	297
Mild/moderate disability	3	1.3
Severe/extreme disability	–	–
Domain 6 (Participation)
No disability	91
Mild/moderate disability	189	80.8
Severe/extreme disability	20	8.5

Correlates of disability

Only the PANSS positive, negative and total scores demonstrated significant relationship with disability (Table 4).

Table 4.

Correlates of disability.

Variables	Disability absent	Disability present	Test statistic	p-value
Gender: n (%)
Male	37 (25.0)	111 (75.0)	1.53^a	.216
female	29 (19.1)	123 (80.9)
Age: n (%)
Below 40	33 (24.3)	103 (75.7)	0.74^a	.389
40 & above	33 (20.1)	131 (79.9)
Ethnicity: n (%)
Yoruba	61 (21.9)	217 (78.1)	0.01^a	.932
Other tribes	5 (22.7)	17 (77.3)
Religion: n (%)
Christianity	51 (22.9)	172 (77.1)	0.38^a	.536
Other religion	15 (19.5)	62 (80.5)
Marital status: n (%)
Currently living with spouse	24 (26.1)	68 (73.9)	1.29^a	.256
Has no spouse	42 (20.2)	166 (79.8)
Highest educational status: n (%)
Below tertiary level	46 (22.8)	156 (77.2)	0.22^a	.643
Tertiary level & above	20 (20.4)	78 (79.6)
Employment status: n (%)
Employed	42 (25.0)	126 (75.0)	2.00^a	.157
Unemployed	24 (18.2)	108 (81.8)
PANSS scores
Positive subscale	7.55 (±1.65)	9.06 (±4.01)	0.46^b	<.001
Negative subscale	7.48 (±1.41)	8.82 (±4.22)	4.09^b	<.001
General subscale	16.45 (±1.89)	16.64 (±2.92)	0.60^b	.547
Total	31.48 (±3.71)	34.52 (±9.05)	4.06^b	<.001
History of previous hospitalization
Yes	28 (18.9)	120 (81.1)	1.62^a	.204
No	38 (25.0)	114 (75.0)
Experiencing extrapyramidal side-effects of medications currently
Yes	6 (12.5)	42 (87.5)	3.01^a	.083
No	60 (23.8)	192 (76.2)
Co-morbid medical illness
Yes	10 (21.7)	36 (78.3)	0.002^a	.963
No	56 (22.0)	198 (78.0)

PANSS: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.

Indicates chi-square test.

Indicates t-test.

Note: Bolded values signify p < 0.05.

Further analysis however revealed that the scores on the positive subscale of PANSS predicted disability—for every unit rise in the score, the odds of having disability increases by a factor of 1.2 (Table 5).

Table 5.

Independent correlates of disability.

Variable	B	SE	Wald	Significance	OR	95% CILower–upper	Nagelkerke R²
Positive PANSS score	0.188	0.083	5.176	0.023	1.207	1.026–1.420	.085
Negative PANSS score	0.138	0.081	2.865	0.091	1.148	0.978–1.346

OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; PANSS: Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.

Note: Bolded values signify p < 0.5

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of disability and its correlates among patients with schizophrenia. This study adds to the existing literature by focusing on distinct domains of disability (Akinsulore et al., 2015) rather than non-delineated disability constructs as observed in previous studies (Rosan et al., 2015) which may not indicate specific areas for rehabilitative intervention. In adopting a cross-culturally validated disability measure, it has attempted to more reliably explore the nature and extent of disability in the population under study. This study extends the current understanding of the relationship between disability in schizophrenia and its correlates in a number of ways.

The prevalence of disability in this sample population is very high. Both African (Gureje & Bamidele, 1999) and non-African studies (Ali, 2009; McKibbin et al., 2008; Wiersma et al., 2000) on the subject matter have reported similar prevalence rates among patients with schizophrenia. Gureje and Bamidele (1999) reported a rate of 78% despite the fact that the instrument used was different from that utilized in this study. While Ali (2009) reported a rate of 96.7%, Wiersma et al. (2000) reported 83%. In other words, this buttresses the fact that generally the diagnosis of the illness confers some form of restriction in fulfilling maximal functions as expected of the patients, considering their age and gender. In terms of severity of disability, other authors (Ali, 2009; Parker & Hadzi-Pavlovic, 1995; Solanki et al., 2010) have reported that the disability in schizophrenia is mostly in the mild to moderate range. Perhaps, the advent of antipsychotics has contributed to this latter finding as their lack or absence could have resulted in greater illness severity and consequently higher levels of disability.

However, majority experiencing ‘disability in the participation in society’ domain is not a new finding (Ali, 2009; Krishnadas et al., 2007; McKibbin et al., 2008; Raj, 2014). It may be a reflection of the patient’s difficulty in initiating and maintaining social relationships. Possible reasons for this may be emotional blunting and apathy being experienced in schizophrenia which may make sufferers not appreciate the relationship needs and expectations of others (Raj, 2014; van Reekum et al., 2005). In addition, patients with schizophrenia also suffer self and public stigma (Herrman et al., 2002; Mosanya et al., 2014). This may make them feel inferior to others and explain why they interact poorly.

It was observed that very few patients reported being disabled in the cognition, mobility, self-care and activities domains. Cognitive processes of most of the respondents may have been slightly affected by the illness (Waddington et al., 1995, 1997) or even spared (Ertuǧrul & Uluǧ, 2002) as noted by some authors. This may explain why such patients may not report disability in cognition. Prior to the advent of anti-psychotics, patients with schizophrenia who had prolonged duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) usually manifested involuntary motor symptoms of the illness such as mutism, ambitendency, catatonia and negativism (McCreadie et al., 1996). These motor symptoms would have resulted in disability in mobility domains and also possibly limited their activities. This would also have impaired their functioning in ‘activities’ domain because of the difficulty in performing household activities or attend school/work. However, these are no longer common presentations today due to early introduction of anti-psychotics (Lieberman, 1999). Hence, a possible reason why only few reported restriction in this domain. Poor attention to self-care is an indicator of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia (WHO, 1993). Why we have very few people reporting disability in this area may also be attributed to the advent of anti-psychotics which has been shown to drastically reduce positive and negative symptoms of the illness (Alptekin et al., 2005).

An important observation was that all the socio-demographic variables as well as some clinical variables did not demonstrate any relationship with disability. It may be because a relatively stable population was utilized in this study and as a result, their clinical parameters were generally good and thus gave little room for variability among respondents. An exception was, however, the severity of psychosis (as measured by PANSS) of which the positive, negative and total scores demonstrated significant positive associations with disability. The significant relationship demonstrated by the total scores can be seen as an effect of multicollinearity (since it represents the additive sum of all the subscale scores). Discussing the relationship between the PANSS positive and negative subscale with disability, similar findings have been noted by previous authors (Górecka & Czernikiewicz, 2004; Gupta & Chadda, 2009). Possible reasons may be because the experiences of positive and negative symptoms by patients with schizophrenia constitute alterations of their hitherto normal state and serves as distraction to their real-world experiences and expectations (Aleman, 2014; Snyder, 2012). The inability to respond to these real-life situations and expectations is seen by others as restriction of activities (disability) in the specific areas of expected functioning. That the general subscale scores did not correlate with disability may essentially be because the items in this subscale are not specific to schizophrenia and so might not, on their own, result in altered experiences. As regard the predictive pattern observed, positive symptoms predicted disability while negative symptomatology did not. This finding is at variance with some of existing literature which found that both are predictors (Akinsulore et al., 2015; Harvey & Strassing, 2012) with negative symptomatology predicting more (Akinsulore et al., 2015). The relatively lower mean scores of negative symptomatology may contribute to this deviance.

In addition to the foregoing discussion on disability specifically, a few sociodemographic findings in the study are also worthy of mention. The observation that most of the respondents were of Yoruba tribe may be explained by the fact that the study was carried out in the south-western part of Nigeria which is largely dominated by the Yoruba tribe (Olabisi et al., 2008), and the study center serves as the first place of presentation for orthodox treatment. Also, a significant proportion of the respondents had poor socio-sexual functioning, and factors such as poor premorbid socio-sexual functioning (Joseph et al., 2013) and stigmatization from spouses (and in-laws) leading to separation/divorce (Aakansha et al., 2016) may have contributed to this. Although this sample had a good proportion being literate, most of them were unemployed. This may be a reflection of the high rate of unemployment in Nigeria (Kayoda et al., 2014). However, why none of the patients is functioning at a managerial level may be explained by a number of factors. Inability to attain the required level of qualifications for the office due to illness-related cognitive impairment (Schneider et al., 2009), poor people skills (Dickinson et al., 2007) which may be necessary to climb up a career ladder, and frequent illness-related work absenteeism (Sado et al., 2014) may all have been contributory.

An important clinical correlate worthy of mention is the DUP in this sample which is 46.8 months that is 3.5 years. In comparison to what was usually obtained in the past (McGlashan, 1999), this figure seems to indicate an improvement and this can be attributed to the advent of anti-psychotics (Perkins et al., 2005). However, considering civilization, one would have expected that the average DUP should be much lower than this. Reason for the dissonance may be explained by the high religious attribution to the illness (Ikwuka et al., 2016). Nigerians still attribute mental illness to be of spiritual origin, and the media is also not helping matters in this regard (Aina, 2004). Relatives usually first take their patients to spiritual homes and may spend days, months, or even years there before presentation for orthodox treatment (Adeosun et al., 2013). Overall, this may account for the prolonged DUP in this sample as also seen in other similar studies conducted in this environment (Adeosun et al., 2013; Effiong & Albert, 2016).

Limitations and strengths

A major limitation of this study is that it was conducted in only a single hospital. A multi-centered study, preferably cutting across the Nigerian geo-political zones, may be more representative of the actual findings across the country. In addition, being a cross-sectional survey, inference as regard causality of interested outcome cannot be made.

However, this work utilized a large sample size with the resultant advantage of robust statistical derivations. Also, an internationally recognized standard measure for disability across relevant domains was utilized, and a wide variety of possible correlates of disability was investigated. All these serve as significant improvements over existing studies in this field.

Conclusion

Disability is quite common among patients with schizophrenia albeit in the mild to moderate variety. Most patients have greatest difficulty in forming social relationships and least difficulty with self-care and physical activities. Pattern of symptomatology may, however, play a role in the manifestation of disability in this study population.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Omokehinde O Fakorede

References

Aakansha

Mattoo

Grover

(2016). Stigma associated with mental illness: Conceptual issues and focus on stigma perceived by the patients with schizophrenia and their caregivers. Indian Journal of Social Psychiatry, 32(2), 134.

Adeosun

I. I.

Adegbohun

A. A.

Adewumi

T. A.

Jeje

O. O.

(2013). The pathways to the first contact with mental health services among patients with schizophrenia in Lagos, Nigeria. Schizophrenia Research and Treatment, 2013, 769161. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/769161

Aina

O. F.

(2004). Mental illness and cultural issues in West African films: Implications for orthodox psychiatric practice. Medical Humanities, 30(1), 23–26. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmh.2003.000152

Akinsulore

Mapayi

Aloba

Oloniniyi

Fatoye

Makanjuola

(2015). Disability assessment as an outcome measure: A comparative study of Nigerian outpatients with schizophrenia and healthy control. Annals of General Psychiatry, 14, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-015-0079-6

Aleman

(2014). Neurocognitive basis of schizophrenia: Information processing abnormalities and clues for treatment. Advances in Neuroscience, 2014, 104920. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/104920

Ali

(2009). Disability in schizophrenia and its relationship with duration of illness and age of onset. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 14(2), 37–41.

Alptekin

Erkoç

Ş.

Göǧüş

A. K.

Kültür

Mete

Üçok

Yazici

K. M.

(2005). Disability in schizophrenia: Clinical correlates and prediction over 1-year follow-up. Psychiatry Research, 135(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2004.05.027

Bhattacharya

Choudhry

Lakdawalla

(2008). Chronic disease and severe disability among working-age populations. Medical Care, 46(1), 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181484335

Bland

R. C.

Orn

(1978). 14-year outcome in early schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 58(4), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1978.tb00239.x

10.

Brill

Levine

S. Z.

Reichenberg

Lubin

Weiser

Rabinowitz

(2009). Pathways to functional outcomes in schizophrenia: The role of premorbid functioning, negative symptoms and intelligence. Schizophrenia Research, 110(1–3), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2009.02.016

11.

Carpenter

J. S.

Andrykowski

M. A.

(1998). Psychometric evaluation of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 45(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(97)00298-5

12.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Disability and health overview: Impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions. National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/disability.html

13.

Chandrashekar

Naveen Kumar

Prashanth

N. R.

Kasthuri

(2010). Disabilities research in India. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 52, 281–285. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.69252

14.

Chaudhury

P. K.

Deka

Dhrubajyoti

(2006). Disability associated with mental disorders. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(2), 95–101.

15.

Cocchiarella

(2017, June 25). Disability assessment and determination in the United States. UpToDate. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/disability-assessment-and-determination-in-the-united-states

16.

Dickinson

Bellack

A. S.

Gold

J. M.

(2007). Social/communication skills, cognition, and vocational functioning in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 33(5), 1213–1220. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbl067

17.

Effiong

Albert

(2016). Pathways to psychiatric care among patients with schizophrenia in Uyo, Nigeria. International Neuropsychiatric Disease Journal, 5(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.9734/INDJ/2016/21570

18.

Ertuǧrul

Uluǧ

(2002). The influence of neurocognitive deficits and symptoms on disability in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 105(3), 196–201. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2002.1020.x

19.

Górecka

J. E.

Czernikiewicz

(2004). The relationship between quality of life of schizophrenic patients and clinical parameters of psychosis. Wiadomości Lekarskie, 57(9–10), 408–412.

20.

Green

M. F.

(2006). Cognitive impairment and functional outcome in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67(Suppl. 9), 3–8.

21.

Gupta

Chadda

R. K.

(2009). Disability in schizophrenia: Do short hospitalizations have a role? International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 13(1), 91–96.

22.

Gureje

Bamidele

(1999). Thirteen-year social outcome among Nigerian outpatients with schizophrenia. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 34(3), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270050126

23.

Harvey

P. D.

Strassing

(2012). Predicting the severity of everyday functional disability in people with schizophrenia: Cognitive deficits, functional capacity, symptoms, and health status. World Psychiatry, 11, 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.05.004

24.

Herrman

Hawthorne

Thomas

(2002). Quality of life assessment in people living with psychosis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 37(11), 510–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-002-0587-y

25.

Ikwuka

Galbraith

Manktelow

Chen-Wilson

Oyebode

Muomah

R. C.

Igboaka

(2016). Pathways to mental healthcare in south-eastern Nigeria. Transcultural Psychiatry, 53(5), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461516660903

26.

Joseph

Bae

Silverstein

S. M.

(2013). Sex, symptom, and premorbid social functioning associated with perceptual organization dysfunction in schizophrenia. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 547. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00547

27.

Kayoda

Arome

Anyio

S. F.

(2014). The rising rate of unemployment in Nigeria: The socio-economic and political implications. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 3, 12–32.

28.

Krishnadas

Moore

B. P.

Nayak

Patel

R. R.

(2007). Relationship of cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia in remission to disability: A cross-sectional study in an Indian sample. Annals of General Psychiatry, 6, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-6-19

29.

Kumar

C. N.

Suresha

K. K.

Thirthalli

Arunachala

Gangadhar

B. N.

(2015). Caregiver burden is associated with disability in schizophrenia: Results of a study from a rural setting of south India. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 61(2), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764014537637

30.

Lieberman

J. A.

(1999). Is schizophrenia a neurodegenerative disorder? A clinical and neurobiological perspective. Biological Psychiatry, 46, 729–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00147-X

31.

Liu

Zhang

Pang

Chen

Zheng

(2015). Schizophrenia-related disability in China: Prevalence, gender, and geographic location. Psychiatric Services, 66(3), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400032

32.

McCreadie

R. G.

Thara

Kamath

Padmavathy

Latha

Mathrubootham

Menon

M. S.

(1996). Abnormal movements in never-medicated Indian patients with schizophrenia. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 221–226. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.168.2.221

33.

McGlashan

T. H.

(1999). Duration of untreated psychosis in first-episode schizophrenia: Marker or determinant of course? Biological Psychiatry, 46, 899–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(99)00084-0

34.

McKibbin

C. L.

Twamley

Patterson

T. L.

Golshan

Lebowitz

Feiner

Shepherd

Jeste

D. V.

(2008). Perceived participation restriction in middle-aged and older persons with schizophrenia. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16(9), 777–780. https://doi.org/10.1097/JGP.0b013e318167a7cf

35.

Mosanya

T. J.

Adelufosi

A. O.

Adebowale

O. T.

Ogunwale

Adebayo

O. K.

(2014). Self-stigma, quality of life and schizophrenia: An outpatient clinic survey in Nigeria. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 60, 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764013491738

36.

Murray

C. J. L.

Lopez

A. D.

(1997). Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990-2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet, 349(9064), 1498–1504.

37.

Naismith

S. L.

Longley

W. A.

Scott

E. M.

Hickie

I. B.

(2007). Disability in major depression related to self-rated and objectively-measured cognitive deficits: A preliminary study. BMC Psychiatry, 7, Article 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-7-32

38.

Narayan

K. K.

Kumar

D. S.

(2012). Disability in a group of long-stay patients with schizophrenia: Experience from a mental hospital. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 34(1), 70–75.

39.

Olabisi

O. E.

Awonusi

A. J.

Adebayo

O. J.

(2008). Assessment of bacteria pollution of shallow well water in Abeokuta, Southwestern Nigeria. Life Science Journal, 5(1), 59–65.

40.

Olagunju

A. T.

Adegbaju

D. A.

Uwakwe

(2016). Disability among attendees with schizophrenia in a Nigerian hospital: Further evidence for integrated rehabilitative treatment designs. Mental Illness, 8, 6647. https://doi.org/10.4081/mi.2016.6647

41.

Parker

Hadzi-Pavlovic

(1995). The capacity of a measure of disability (the LSP) to predict hospital readmission in those with schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine, 25(1), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700028178

42.

Perkins

D. O.

Boteva

Lieberman

J. A.

(2005). Relationship between duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in first-episode schizophrenia: A critical review and meta-analysis. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 162(10), 1785–1804. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.162.10.1785

43.

Picchioni

M. M.

Murray

R. M.

(2007). Schizophrenia. British Medical Journal, 335(7610), 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39227.616447.BE

44.

Raj

(2014). Living with a disability: A perspective on disability in People Living with Schizophrenia (PLS). International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 18(1), 115–123.

45.

Rosan

Frick

P. J.

Gottlieb

K. A.

Fasicaru

(2015). Callous-unemotional traits and anxiety in a sample of detained adolescents in Romania. Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 15(1), 79–95.

46.

Sado

Shirahase

Yoshimura

Miura

Yamamoto

Tabuchi

Kato

Mimura

(2014). Predictors of repeated sick leave in the workplace because of mental disorders. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 10, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S55490

47.

Schneider

Boyce

Johnson

Secker

Slade

Grove

Floyd

(2009). Impact of supported employment on service costs and income of people with mental health needs. Journal of Mental Health, 18(6), 533–542. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638230903111098

48.

Snyder

(2012). Erratum. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38, 648. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1093/schbul/sbs055

49.

Solanki

R. K.

Singh

Midha

Chugh

Swami

M. K.

(2010). Disability and quality of life in schizophrenia and obsessive compulsive disorder: A cross-sectional comparative study. East Asian Archives of Psychiatry, 20(1), 7–13.

50.

Thaker

G. K.

Carpenter

(2001). Advances in schizophrenia. Nature Medicine, 7, 667–671. https://doi.org/10.1038/89040

51.

Thara

(2005). Measurement of psychiatric disability. The Indian Journal of Medical Research, 121(6), 723–724.

52.

Thirthalli

Kumar

C. N.

(2012). Stigma and disability in schizophrenia: Developing countries’ perspective. International Review of Psychiatry, 24(5), 423–440.

53.

Valecha

Thara

Rajkumar

(1988). The schedule for assessment of psychiatric disability – A modification of the DAS-II. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 30, 47–55.

54.

van Reekum

Stuss

D. T.

Ostrander

. (2005). Apathy: Why care? The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 17(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1176/jnp.17.1.7

55.

Villalta-Gil

Vilaplana

Ochoa

Haro

J. M.

Dolz

Usall

Cervilla

(2006). Neurocognitive performance and negative symptoms: Are they equal in explaining disability in schizophrenia outpatients? Schizophrenia Research, 87(1–3), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2006.06.013

56.

Waddington

Scully

Youssef

(1997). Developmental trajectory and disease progression in schizophrenia: The conundrum, and insights from a 12-year prospective study in the Monaghan 101. Schizophrenia Research, 23, 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0920-9964(96)00111-9

57.

Waddington

Youssef

Kinsella

(1995). Sequential cross-sectional and 10-year prospective study of severe negative symptoms in relation to duration of initially untreated psychosis in chronic schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine, 25(4), 849–857. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700035108

58.

Wiersma

DeJong

Ormel

(1988). The Groningen Social Disabilities Schedule: Development, relationship with I.C.I.D.H., and psychometric properties. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 11(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004356-198809000-00001

59.

Wiersma

Wanderling

Dragomirecka

Ganev

Harrison

An Der Heiden

Nienhuis

F. J.

Walsh

(2000). Social disability in schizophrenia: Its development and prediction over 15 years in incidence cohorts in six European centres. Psychological Medicine, 30, 1155–1167.

60.

World Health Organization. (1993). The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Diagnostic criteria for research. https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

61.

World Health Organization. (2011). Understanding disability. In World report on disability. https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf

62.

World Health Organization. (2014). WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. https://www.who.int/classifications/icf/whodasii/en/

63.

World Health Organization. (2018). Disabilities. http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/