Brief psychoeducation for bipolar disorder: Impact on quality of life in young adults in a 6-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Psychiatry research 2014-12, Vol.220 (3), p.896-902
• Main Authors: Cardoso, Taiane de Azevedo, Farias, Clarisse de Azambuja, Mondin, Thaíse Campos, da Silva, Giovanna Del Grande, Souza, Luciano Dias de Mattos, da Silva, Ricardo Azevedo, Pinheiro, Karen Tavares, do Amaral, Rogério Gonçalves, Jansen, Karen
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Adult and adolescent clinical studies; Antimanic Agents - therapeutic use; Biological and medical sciences; Bipolar disorder; Bipolar Disorder - diagnosis; Bipolar Disorder - pathology; Bipolar Disorder - therapy; Bipolar disorders; Combined Modality Therapy; Female; Follow-up; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Miscellaneous; Mood disorders; Patient Education as Topic; Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; Psychotherapy, Brief; Quality of Life; Quality of Life - psychology; Randomized clinical trial; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0165-1781; 1872-7123
• DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.09.013

Abstract There are scarce follow-up studies evaluating the role of psychoeducation in the treatment of bipolar disorder, especially in a young sample, with a recent diagnosis and that probably received a few previous interventions. This was a randomized clinical trial with young adults aged 18–29 years, who had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder through the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID). The evaluation of quality of life was carried out using the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (MOS SF-36). All participants were randomized into two groups: combined intervention (psychoeducation plus medication) and treatment-as-usual (medication). The sample consisted of 61 patients divided in two groups (29 usual treatment; 32 combined intervention). The quality of life domains did not reveal statistically significant differences when comparing baseline, post-intervention and 6-month follow-up evaluations, which indicates that there is no difference between combined intervention and usual intervention regarding quality of life improvement. Both groups presented improvements in quality of life domains, except General Health and Bodily Pain, at post-intervention. Moreover, this improvement persisted at 6-month follow-up, except for the Role Physical Health domain, which remained reduced. Combined Psychoeducation plus pharmacological intervention is so effective in improving quality of life perception as it is pharmacological only intervention.