| Title |
The Relationship of Motivation and Neurocognition with Functionality in Schizophrenia: A Meta-analytic Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Community Mental Health Journal, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10597-018-0266-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonia Najas-Garcia, Juana Gómez-Benito, Tania B. Huedo-Medina |
| Abstract |
The role that neurocognition plays in functionality in schizophrenia has been widely examined, although in recent years increasing attention has been paid to the influence of motivation instead. This study provides a review of the relationship of neurocognition and motivation with functionality in schizophrenia, taking into account objective/subjective functionality assessment, demographic variables, and the different terms used when referring to motivation. A search of electronic databases identified 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria for review. Correlation coefficients between motivation and functionality and between neurocognition and functionality were extracted. For a better understanding, potential moderator variables were also extracted. Meta-analysis showed that both motivation and neurocognition assessments were strongly associated with functioning, with correlations between motivation and functional outcomes being stronger. However, more than three-quarters of the variance in outcome remained unexplained by the moderating factors examined. The paper concludes with recommendations for clinical practice and future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
#17,937,475
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Community Mental Health Journal
#954
of 1,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,812
of 329,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Community Mental Health Journal
#20
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,294 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.