Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T00:29:25.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mixed-effects models: Family burden and functionality in patients with bipolar disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2020

A. García-Alocén
Affiliation:
Hospital Universitario Araba. Cibersam, Psychiatry, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
M. Martínez-Cengotitabengoa
Affiliation:
Hospital Universitario Araba. Cibersam, Psychiatry, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
S. Alberich
Affiliation:
Hospital Universitario Araba. Cibersam, Psychiatry, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
I. González-Ortega
Affiliation:
Hospital Universitario Araba. Cibersam, Psychiatry, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
S. Barbeito Resa
Affiliation:
Hospital Universitario Araba. Cibersam, Psychiatry, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
A. González-Pinto
Affiliation:
Hospital Universitario Araba. Cibersam, Psychiatry, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

The bipolar disorder (BD) has an important effect over the lives of patients and families. The attitude of the family is a modifiable factor through specific interventions and it has been related with BD prognosis.

Objectives

Study a sample of families and patients with BD.

Aims

Compare between two groups its course of burden of caring for family members with BD. Also, we will see the course of the functionality in patients.

Methods

Sample of 148 individuals who caring a familiar with BD. Seventy-six of these followed psychoeducation session are going to be experimental group (EG), and the others 72 did not followed any session are going to be control group (CG). There is a follow-up at 6 months and one year. To see the course of the burden and the functionality it will be used mixed models.

Results

At baseline, there were not significant differences between CG and EG in objective and subjective burden and functionality. But over time there were significant results in the three cases. For objective burden (b = −0.016; P = 0.0001) EG presented a drop (b = −0.014; P = 0.0062), while CG did not show changes (b = 0.002; P = 0.4691). For subjective burden (b = −0.014; P = 0.0058) without significant results for CG (b = −0.352; P = 0.3203) and a significant decrease in EG (b = −0.017; P = 0.003). For the functionality (b = 1.474; P = 0.000) there was a significant increase in EG (b = 1.349; P = 0.000) but not for CG (b = −0.125; P = 0.3828).

Conclusions

Two groups did not differ at baseline however after the psychoeducation sessions appear clear differences, decreasing the burden for EG group and the functionality also improved for EG.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Type
EV162
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2016
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.