The purpose of this systematic literature review is to provide an exhaustive summary of current research to explore the prospects of compassion-based approaches in treating persons with Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders (SSD). Thereby, studies investigating the relationship between clinical parameters and self-compassion in SSD, as well as the acceptability, feasibility, and effects of compassion-based approaches for individuals with SSD were considered. The review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis. The results indicate an important role of self-compassion for several clinical parameters, including negative associations to positive symptoms, negative symptoms, cognitive disorganization, and emotional distress. All studies reported good acceptability and feasibility. Regarding the clinical effectiveness of compassion-based approaches, a variety of clinical benefits, such as improvements of mood, affect regulation, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, cognitive disorganization, and variables relating to psychological recovery were found in individuals with SSD. It is concluded that compassion-based approaches are a promising form of intervention in the treatment of SSD. However, further research, especially randomized controlled trials, in this field is needed to understand the full potential of compassion-based approaches for individuals with SSD.
Purpose To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of partial rotator cuff repair (RCR) with and without implantation of a biodegradable subacromial spacer in the treatment of symptomatic irreparable massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs). Methods Patients with MRCT who underwent arthroscopic partial repair alone (PR) or combined with subacromial spacer augmentation (PRS) were included. Patient‐reported outcomes, including visual analog scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Constant scores in addition to range of motion (ROM) were collected preoperatively and at the final follow‐up. Additionally, we determined the percentages of all of the patients in groups that achieved the minimal clinical important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient‐acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the VAS, ASES, and Constant scores. Acromiohumeral distance (AHD) was determined as well. Results A total of 32 patients were included. Group PR included 20 patients with a median age of 68 years (range: 64‐73) and median follow‐up 28.0 months (14.0‐60.0). Group PRS included 12 patients with a median age of 68.5 years (range: 63‐74) and median follow‐up of 17.0 months (12.0‐32.0). At the final follow‐up, the ASES, VAS, and Constant scores were significantly higher in the PRS group (75.5 [55‐88.3], 1.0 [0‐3], and 70.0 [43‐79], respectively, compared to the PR group (55.0 [37.5‐65], 2.0 [0‐4], and 55.0 [31‐79], respectively; P < .05). The only statistically significant differences were found between the PR and PRS groups in terms of the proportions of the patients who achieved MCID for the ASES (70% vs. 100%; P = .04) and in terms of the proportions of the patients who achieved SCB for the ASES (60% vs 100%; P = .01) There was also statistically significant difference between the PR and PRS groups, in terms of the proportions of the patients who achieved PASS for the VAS and ASES ([30 % vs 66.7 %; P = .04] and [0 % vs 50 %; P = .001], respectively). AHD was also improved in the PRS group (8.4 [7‐9.5] vs 7.85 [5.5‐9]; P < .05). ROM was greater in the PRS group at final follow‐up with median forward flexion degree, 140.0° (90°‐150°) versus 120.0° (80°‐153°) ( P < .001) and median abduction degree, 100.0° (70°‐130°) versus 90.0° (70°‐110°). There was no difference in terms of external rotation between groups (3° [2°‐5°] vs 3.0° (2°‐4°); P = .4). Conclusions Arthroscopic partial RCR with implantation of a subacromial spacer leads to satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with symptomatic irreparable MRCT compared with patients treated with partial repair alone. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.