We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Patients with severe psychotic disorders exhibit a severely reduced quality of life (QoL) at all stages of the disease. Integrated care often led to an improvement in QoL. However, the specific mediators of QoL change are not yet well understood.
Methods
The ACCESS II study is a prospective, long-term study investigating the effectiveness of an integrated care program for people with severe psychotic disorders (IC-TACT) that includes Therapeutic Assertive Community Treatment within a care network of in- and outpatient services at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. We examined longitudinal associations between QoL and the hypothesized mediators of change (i.e., negative symptoms, depression, and anxiety), using cross-lagged panel models.
Results
The sample includes 418 severely ill patients treated in IC-TACT for at least 1 year. QoL increased, whereas symptom severity decreased significantly from baseline to 6-month follow-up (p-values ≤ 0.001), and remained stable until 12-month follow-up. QoL and symptom severity demonstrated significant auto-correlated effects and significant cross-lagged effects from QoL at baseline to negative symptoms (6 months, β = −0.20, p < 0.001) to QoL (12 months, β = −0.19, p < 0.01) resulting in a significant indirect, mediated effect. Additionally, negative symptoms after 6 months had a significant effect on the severity of depression after 12 months (β = 0.13, p < 0.05).
Conclusions
Negative symptoms appear to represent an important mechanism of change in IC-TACT indicating that improvement of QoL could potentially be achieved through optimized intervention on negative symptoms. Moreover, this may lead to a reduction in the severity of depression after 12 months.
The European Union of today cannot be studied as it once was. This original new textbook provides a much-needed update on how the EU's policies and institutions have changed in light of the multiple crises and transformations since 2010. An international team of leading scholars offer systematic accounts on the EU's institutional regime, policies, and its community of people and states. Each chapter is structured to explain the relevant historical developments and institutional framework, presenting the key actors, the current controversies and discussing a paradigmatic case study. Each chapter also provides ideas for group discussions and individual research topics. Moving away from the typical, neutral account of the functioning of the EU, this textbook will stimulate readers' critical thinking towards the EU as it is today. It will serve as a core text for undergraduate and graduate students of politics and European studies taking courses on the politics of the EU, and those taking courses in comparative politics and international organizations including the EU.
Who is in charge of the EU? Who controls what happens? What is the balance of power among EU institutional actors? Scholars have long disagreed, divided over which actors exercise what kind of power. As European integration has deepened over time, with all EU actors increasingly empowered in different ways, scholarly debates evolved, but the principal divisions remained. Some scholars contended that intergovernmental actors in the Council and later the European Council were in charge. Others insisted that supranational actors in a range of EU-level administrations and agencies exercised control. While yet others saw the EP as a growing force in EU decision-making.1