Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Short Communications
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Short Communications
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Letter
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Current Issue
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Images
Images in Neurology
Images in Neuroscience
Images in Neurosciences
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Letters to the Editor
Media and News
None
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Point of View
Position Paper
Review Article
Short Communication
Short Communications
Systematic Review
Systematic Review Article
Technical Note
Techniques in Neurosurgery
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Original Article
16 (
2
); 231-240
doi:
10.25259/JNRP_350_2024

A comparative study of medication adherence, illness severity, and quality of life among psychiatric patients attending community mental health programs

Department of Psychiatric Social Work, Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
Department of Psychiatry, Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, India.

*Corresponding author: N. S. Rakesh, Department of Psychiatric Social Work, Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, India. rakesh.mob8@gmail.com

Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Rakesh NS, Anatharamu BG, Kosagi S. A comparative study of medication adherence, illness severity, and quality of life among psychiatric patients attending community mental health programs. J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2025:16:231-40. doi: 10.25259/JNRP_350_2024

Abstract

Objectives:

Mental health disorders represent a significant global health challenge, necessitating innovative approaches to treatment and care. This study aims to compare sociodemographic variables, medication compliance behavior, severity of illness, and Quality of Life (QOL) among psychiatric patients attending Community Mental Health Camps (CMHCs) and Follow-up Outpatient departments (FW-OPDs) of a tertiary hospital. The objectives include examining the associations between these factors and understanding how different care settings impact patient outcomes.

Materials and Methods:

A cross-sectional study design was utilized, enrolling psychiatric patients from both CMHCs and FW-OPDs. Data were collected through standardized questionnaires and clinical assessments. Medication adherence was measured using self-report scales, severity of illness through clinical evaluations, and QOL through validated instruments. Sociodemographic data were also gathered. Statistical analyses included Chi-square tests, regression analysis, and analysis of variance to explore the relationships between sociodemographic factors, medication adherence, severity of illness, and QOL.

Results:

Patients attending CMHCs demonstrated higher medication adherence compared to those at outpatient departments (OPDs), attributed to personalized care, continuous follow-up, and psychoeducational programs. The severity of illness was higher among OPD patients, while CMHC patients exhibited better psychological and social QOL but poorer physical health QOL. There were no significant differences in sociodemographic factors between the two patient groups.

Conclusion:

The study highlights the strengths of CMHCs in improving medication adherence and managing the severity of illness through comprehensive care. However, the poorer physical health QOL in CMHC patients indicates a need for integrated physical health services within these programs. Both CMHCs and FW-OPDs serve diverse patient populations, suggesting the need for inclusive and tailored interventions to enhance psychiatric care and patient outcomes across different healthcare settings.

Keywords

Community mental health centers
Medication adherence
Outpatient departments
Psychiatric patients
Quality of life
Severity of illness

INTRODUCTION

Mental health disorders are a leading cause of disability globally, affecting millions each year.[1,2] In low- and middle-income countries like India, the burden is exacerbated by socioeconomic factors and limited access to care.[3] Understanding and addressing these challenges, particularly in psychiatric patients, is crucial.

This study compares medication compliance, severity of illness, and quality of life (QOL) among psychiatric patients attending Community Mental Health Programs and those visiting tertiary hospital follow-up outpatient departments (FW-OPDs). Medication compliance is vital for managing psychiatric conditions, but non-adherence remains a significant barrier, influenced by factors such as the severity of illness and the QOL.[4,5] Poor compliance leads to relapse, worsening symptoms, and reduced QOL.[6,7]

QOL, as measured by the World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL)-BREF, encompasses physical and psychological health, social relationships, and environment.[8-11] The severity of illness further complicates this, making effective management essential.[12,13]

India’s government has implemented several schemes to improve access to mental health care, including the National Mental Health Program,[14] the District Mental Health Program,[15] and the Mental Healthcare Act 2017.[16] These initiatives aim to provide accessible and equitable care, particularly in underserved areas, highlighting the importance of integrating mental health into general healthcare systems.[17,18]

This study’s findings could inform policies and practices to improve mental health outcomes, contributing to the broader goal of enhanced psychiatric care.[3,17]

Literature review

The literature review explores the relationship between medication adherence, illness severity, and QOL among psychiatric patients in Community Mental Health Camps (CMHCs) and FW-OPDs of tertiary hospitals. Psychiatric disorders contribute to 14% of the global disease burden, with medication non-adherence rates reaching 49% in conditions such as schizophrenia (56%), major depressive disorder (50%), and bipolar disorder (44%), influenced by various individuals, social, clinical, and systemic factors.[19] Adherence rates are affected by drug use history, the number of prescribed antipsychotics, conscientiousness, and environmental QOL. Interventions such as family support, adherence therapy, and cognitive-behavioral strategies are crucial for improving adherence, particularly in schizophrenia. Factors such as younger age, male gender, low income, and higher symptom severity are associated with non-adherence, highlighting the importance of psychoeducation and enhanced mental health services.[16] Medication adherence interventions can lead to modest but significant improvements in patient-centered outcomes, including QOL and physical function.[20]

A positive correlation exists between medication adherence and QOL in schizophrenia patients, with psychoeducation and strong therapeutic alliances proving particularly effective.[21,22] However, gender disparities in health-related QOL suggest a need for gender-specific interventions.[23] Illness severity, typically assessed using tools like the clinical global impressions (CGIs) and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, tends to be higher among CMHC patients due to their focus on chronic and severe cases.[24] At the same time, outpatient departments (OPDs) see a broader range of severity. Severe mental illness significantly reduces QOL, emphasizing the need for comprehensive care strategies.[25]

Community integration and social support play critical roles in enhancing QOL. Intensive mental health services promote community integration, though social connections often stem from the broader community.[26] The debate continues over the effectiveness of compulsory versus voluntary community treatment, with little difference in QOL outcomes, though peer support shows some benefits for recovery. Online peer support also enhances social connectedness and self-esteem among individuals with severe mental illness despite certain risks.[27]

Globally, integrated and community-based approaches are essential for improving outcomes in severe mental illnesses.[28] Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, such as employment status and social support satisfaction, significantly influence QOL in psychiatric patients, especially in CMHCs, which often serve more disadvantaged populations.[29] Despite extensive research, there is a lack of comparative studies between CMHC and OPD patients, highlighting the need for comprehensive analyses and long-term research on integrated care models. Addressing high rates of medication non-adherence and the varying severity of psychiatric illness, this study is essential for developing tailored interventions and comprehensive care models for different healthcare settings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Procedure

A cross-sectional comparative research design was adopted to investigate drug compliance behavior and QOL among psychiatric patients attending the FW-OPD at DIMHANS, Dharwad, and CMHCs conducted in the villages of Kalagatagi, Navalagunda, Kakkeri, and Kundagol under the same institution. Before data collection, ethical clearance was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee (Ref No: DIMHANS/IEC/13/2023-24), and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was carried out over a period of six months, from May 2023 to October 2023. Figure 1 illustrates the flow of the study methodology, including details of participant recruitment, sampling, data collection tools, and assessment procedures.

Displays the flowchart depicting the methodology of the study. CMHC: Community mental health camp, DIMHANS: Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, FW-OPD: Follow-up outpatient department, QOL: Quality of life, OPD: Outpatient department, ICD: International classification of diseases, MARS: Medication adherence rating scale, CGI: Clinical global impression, WHO QOL-BREF: World Health Organization quality of life-brief.
Figure 1:
Displays the flowchart depicting the methodology of the study. CMHC: Community mental health camp, DIMHANS: Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, FW-OPD: Follow-up outpatient department, QOL: Quality of life, OPD: Outpatient department, ICD: International classification of diseases, MARS: Medication adherence rating scale, CGI: Clinical global impression, WHO QOL-BREF: World Health Organization quality of life-brief.

Sampling

The study employed a convenience sampling method to recruit a total of 80 participants, comprising 40 patients from the FW-OPD and ten patients each from four CMHC villages. The sample population included psychiatric patients aged between 18 and 40 years, diagnosed with mental and behavioral disorders as classified under the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 (codes 6A20–6E8Z). Participants were eligible for inclusion if they had received a formal diagnosis in accordance with ICD-11 criteria, had been undergoing treatment at either the FW-OPD or CMHCs for a minimum duration of 1 month, and fell within the specified age range of 18–40 years.

Measurement tools

Data collection involved face-to-face structured interviews with patients and caregivers. A general data sheet recorded socio-demographic details (age, gender, education, marital status, employment, income, caregivers, family psychiatric history, physical illness, duration of illness, hospitalization history, and diagnosis). Drug adherence was assessed using the medication adherence rating scale,[30] with higher scores indicating better compliance. Illness severity was measured using the CGI scale,[31,32] and QOL was evaluated using the WHOQOL-BREF,[33,34] covering four domains: Physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment.[35]

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, and frequency distributions, were used to analyze socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Comparative analysis was performed using t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Chi-square tests to assess differences in medication compliance, illness severity, and QOL among FW-OPD and CMHC attendees. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine associations between adherence behavior, illness severity, and QOL, with subgroup analysis based on socio-demographic characteristics.

Confidentiality of participant data was strictly maintained, and participation was voluntary, ensuring that withdrawal from the study would not affect ongoing treatment. The data collected were used exclusively for research purposes.

RESULTS

The study revealed that among FW-OPD participants, the majority were male (67.5%), within the 15–47 age range, married (72.5%), and primarily engaged in daily wage labor (47.5%). Most had a basic education (35% up to 9th standard), and a small proportion attained higher education. A significant number identified as Hindu (92.5%) and lived in rural areas (60%). The most common psychiatric diagnoses were psychosis (52.5%) and schizophrenia (20%), with all participants receiving treatment; however, only 12.5% reported a family history of mental illness. Most belonged to low-income groups, and the primary caregivers were typically spouses (67.5%) or parents (30%). Similarly, CMHC participants were predominantly male (60%) and married (65%), with 72.5% having children. Educational levels were generally low, with 42.5% educated up to the 9th standard and 22.5% having no formal education. Daily wage labor was the most frequent occupation (57.5%), and most lived in rural areas (72.5%) and identified as Hindu (80%). Psychosis was the leading diagnosis (55%), followed by depression (20%) and schizophrenia (12.5%). While all received treatment, only 17.5% reported a family history of mental illness. Income levels were similarly low, and caregiving was mainly provided by spouses (55%) and parents (40%). Henceforth, the Chi-square analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in sociodemographic variables between FW-OPD and CMHC patients (all P > 0.05).

The study revealed that moderate medication adherence was most prevalent across both groups, with a notably higher rate in the CMHC (70%) compared to the FW-OPD (35%). Conversely, low adherence was more common in the FWOPD (43%) than in the CMHC (20%), while high adherence remained low in both settings (OPD: 23%, CMHC: 10%). Regarding illness severity, the majority of patients in both groups were classified within the “borderline” to “moderately ill” range, although a greater proportion of CMHC patients (23%) were classified as “not at all ill” compared to those in the FW-OPD group (5%).

In terms of global improvement, a higher percentage of CMHC patients were rated as “very much improved” (25%) and “much improved” (45%) compared to their FW-OPD counterparts (20% and 38%, respectively), with minimal improvement rates being relatively similar across both groups. Both groups showed “marked” treatment efficacy, with 53% of OPD patients and 63% of CMHC patients reporting positive clinical outcomes with manageable side effects.

When assessing QOL, poor physical health QOL was more commonly observed in the CMHC group (40%) compared to the FW-OPD group (21%). However, psychological QOL was comparable between the groups, with 45% of participants in both groups reporting relatively high QOL. Social relationship QOL was generally poor in both CMHC (68%) and FW-OPD (64%) groups, while environmental QOL was rated positively by most participants in both groups (OPD: 69%, CMHC: 70%).

The Chi-square test indicated a statistically significant association in medication adherence between the FW-OPD and CMHC groups (P = 0.007), as well as a statistically significant association in physical health QOL between the two groups (P = 0.000).

Table 1 presents the results of Pearson’s correlation coefficient statistical test among patients in FW-OPDs, examining the relationships between medication adherence practices, severity of illness, and QOL. Medication adherence was found to be positively correlated with severity of illness (r = 0.45, P < 0.01) and global improvement (r = 0.38, P < 0.01), but negatively correlated with the efficacy index (r = −0.41, P < 0.01), physical health (r = −0.35, P < 0.05), and psychological health (r = −0.30, P < 0.05). Severity of illness was positively correlated with global improvement (r = 0.52, P < 0.01), while it was negatively correlated with the efficacy index (r = −0.46, P < 0.01), physical health (r = −0.40, P < 0.01), and psychological health (r = −0.39, P < 0.01). Global improvement showed negative correlations with the efficacy index (r = −0.44, P < 0.01), physical health (r = −0.32, P < 0.05), and psychological health (r = −0.29, P < 0.05). The efficacy index was positively correlated with physical health (r = 0.50, P < 0.01), psychological health (r = 0.47, P < 0.01), and environment (r = 0.42, P < 0.01). Physical health was positively correlated with psychological health (r = 0.55, P < 0.01) and environment (r = 0.36, P < 0.05), while psychological health was positively correlated with social relationships (r = 0.33, P < 0.05) and environment (r = 0.40, P < 0.01). Finally, social relationships exhibited a weak positive correlation with environment (r = 0.28, P < 0.05).

Table 1: Correlation among patients in FW-OPDs between medication adherence practices, severity of illness, and QOL.
Attended OPD Medication adherence Severity of illness Global improvement Efficacy index Physical health Psychological Social relationship Environment
FW-OPD (n=40)
  Medication adherence
    r 1 0.607** 0.564** −0.531** −0.732** −0.630** −0.124 −0.461**
    P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.446 0.003
  Severity of illness
    r 0.607** 1 0.865** −0.520** −0.576** −0.594** −0.172 −0.522**
    P 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.29 0.001
  Global improvement
    r 0.564** 0.865** 1 −0.554** −0.547** −0.613** −0.302 −0.419**
    P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.007
  Efficacy index
    r −0.531** −0.520** −0.554** 1 0.369* 0.457** 0.000 0.505**
    P 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.019 0.003 1 0.001
  Physical health
    r −0.732** −0.576** −0.547** 0.369* 1 0.832** 0.247 0.457**
    P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.124 0.003
  Psychological
    r −0.630** −0.594** −0.613** 0.457** 0.832** 1 0.407** 0.596**
    P 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.009 0.000
  Social relationship
    r −0.124 −0.172 −0.302 0.000 0.247 0.407** 1 0.211
    P 0.446 0.29 0.058 1 0.124 0.009 0.191
  Environment
    r −0.461** −0.522** −0.419** 0.505** 0.457** 0.596** 0.211 1
    P 0.003 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.191

FW-OPDs: Follow-up outpatient departments, QOL: Quality of life, OPD: Outpatient department, r: Pearson’s correlation coefficient, P: Probability value indicating significance, n: Sample size. * indicates significance at the P< 0.05 level, ** indicates significance at the P< 0.01 level.

Table 2 presents the results of Pearson’s correlation coefficient statistical test among patients in CMHCs, examining the relationships between various clinical and QOL variables. Medication adherence was positively correlated with both severity of illness (r = 0.608, P < 0.001) and global improvement (r = 0.626, P < 0.001), suggesting that higher adherence is associated with better clinical outcomes. However, adherence also showed significant negative correlations with the efficacy index (r = −0.430, P = 0.006), psychological health (r = −0.468, P = 0.002), social relationships (r = −0.408, P = 0.009), and environment (r = −0.367, P = 0.020), indicating that improved clinical status may sometimes come at the cost of perceived QOL in these areas. A strong positive correlation was found between severity of illness and global improvement (r = 0.877, P < 0.001), with both negatively correlating with the efficacy index and all QOL domains. Physical health positively correlated with psychological health (r = 0.411, P = 0.008), but negatively correlated with social relationships (r = −0.317, P = 0.046), while showing no significant relationship with the efficacy index. The environment domain positively correlated with the efficacy index (r = 0.331, P = 0.037), but did not significantly correlate with illness severity, global improvement, or social relationships. These findings reveal a complex interplay between clinical improvement and subjective QOL, highlighting possible trade-offs between symptom management and well-being in certain life domains.

Table 2: Correlation among patients in CMHCs between medication adherence practices, severity of illness, and QOL.
Attended OPD Medication adherence Severity of illness Global improvement Efficacy index Physical health Psychological Social relationship Environment
CMHC (n=40)
  Medication adherence
    r 1 0.608** 0.626** −0.430** −0.206 −0.468** −0.408** −0.367*
    P 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.203 0.002 0.009 0.02
  Severity of illness
    r 0.608** 1 0.877** −0.411** −0.178 −0.485** −0.246 −0.106
    P 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.271 0.002 0.126 0.514
  Global improvement
    r 0.626** 0.877** 1 −0.443** −0.353* −0.415** −0.255 −0.168
    P 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.026 0.008 0.112 0.301
  Efficacy index
    r −0.430** −0.411** −0.443** 1 −0.011 0.178 0.006 0.331*
    P 0.006 0.008 0.004 0.947 0.272 0.969 0.037
  Physical health
    r −0.206 −0.178 −0.353* −0.011 1 0.411** −0.317* 0.332*
    P 0.203 0.271 0.026 0.947 0.008 0.046 0.037
  Psychological
    r −0.468** −0.485** −0.415** 0.178 0.411** 1 0.235 0.291
    P 0.002 0.002 0.008 0.272 0.008 0.144 0.068
  Social relationship
    r −0.408** −0.246 −0.255 0.006 −0.317* 0.235 1 −0.196
    P 0.009 0.126 0.112 0.969 0.046 0.144 0.225
  Environment
    r −0.367* −0.106 −0.168 0.331* 0.332* 0.291 −0.196 1
    P 0.02 0.514 0.301 0.037 0.037 0.068 0.225

CMHC: Community mental health camps, QOL: Quality of life, OPD: Outpatient department, r: Pearson’s correlation coefficient, P: Probability value indicating significance, n: Sample size. * indicates significance at the P< 0.05 level, ** indicates significance at the P< 0.01 level.

Table 3 presents the results of an ANOVA, indicating that gender significantly influences several health-related outcomes, including medication adherence (P = 0.045), severity of illness (P = 0.007), global improvement (P = 0.009), physical health (P = 0.024), psychological well-being (P = 0.007), and environmental quality (P = 0.035). Attendance at OPDs also demonstrates strong and consistent effects, particularly on severity of illness (P = 0.000), global improvement (P = 0.012), and physical health (P = 0.002). Educational attainment is significantly associated with severity of illness (P = 0.036), global improvement (P = 0.009), and physical health (P = 0.017). Occupation shows a marginally significant effect on global improvement (P = 0.050), with more pronounced associations with environmental factors (P = 0.034) and physical health (P = 0.002). Collectively, gender and OPD attendance emerge as the most consistent and robust predictors of improved health outcomes within this sample of 80 participants.

Table 3: Presents the impact of specific sociodemographic factors on medication adherence, severity of illness, and QOL.
Variables (n=80) Sum of squares df Mean square F P-value
Medication adherence
  Gender 1.738 1 1.738 4.158 0.045
Severity of illness
  Gender 7.311 1 7.311 7.846 0.007
  Education 11.892 5 2.378 2.553 0.036
  Attending OPD 14.174 1 14.174 15.212 0.000
Global improvement
  Gender 5.844 1 5.844 7.346 0.009
  Education 13.305 5 2.661 3.345 0.009
  Occupation 8.004 4 2.001 2.515 0.050
  Attending OPD 5.282 1 5.282 6.640 0.012
  Education 5.947 5 1.189 3.001 0.017
  Occupation 7.432 4 1.858 4.688 0.002
Physical health
  Gender 2.288 1 2.288 5.350 0.024
  Attending OPD 4.496 1 4.496 10.515 0.002
Psychological
  Gender 3.984 1 3.984 7.786 0.007
Environment
  Gender 0.859 1 0.859 4.611 0.035
  Occupation 2.073 4 0.518 2.783 0.034

QOL: Quality of life, OPD: Outpatient department, df: Degrees of freedom, F: F-value from ANOVA, ANOVA: Analysis of variance.

DISCUSSION

The present study conducted a comparative assessment of patients attending FW-OPDs and CMHCs, focusing on medication adherence, illness severity, global improvement, treatment efficacy, and QOL. Medication adherence was significantly lower among FW-OPD patients, with 43% showing low adherence compared to 20% in the CMHC group. CMHC patients exhibited better treatment engagement, with 70% showing moderate adherence versus 35% of FW-OPD patients.[30,32] Regarding illness severity, 45% of CMHC patients were categorized as borderline mentally ill, whereas FW-OPD patients were more distributed between borderline (35%) and mildly ill (30%) categories. Global improvement data indicated that 45% of CMHC patients reported much improvement, slightly higher than FW-OPD patients (38%). Furthermore, CMHC patients had a higher perceived treatment efficacy, with 63% rating their treatment as markedly effective, compared to 53% of FW-OPD patients.

QOL assessments revealed nuanced differences between groups. Physical health QOL was poorer in CMHC patients (40%) than FW-OPD patients (21%). Psychological health scores were comparable, with 45% in both groups reporting relatively high QOL. Social relationships emerged as a challenge, particularly among FW-OPD patients, 64% of whom reported impaired social QOL, compared to 68% in the CMHC group. Environmental QOL was generally high across both settings, slightly favoring CMHC patients (70% vs. 69%).[33] Statistical analysis further confirmed that gender and OPD attendance significantly influenced multiple outcomes, including medication adherence, severity of illness, global improvement, and QOL domains (P < 0.05). These findings underscore the importance of service delivery context in shaping mental health outcomes and support the enhanced role of community-based care models in promoting treatment adherence and recovery.

In addition, a contemporary study found a statistically significant relationship between medication adherence and the type of OPD attended (χ2 = 9.830, P = 0.007), indicating better adherence outcomes in CMHCs compared to FWOPDs. This aligns with previous literature emphasizing the effectiveness of structured follow-up and personalized interventions in CMHCs.[36,37] Conversely, no significant relationships were observed between the type of OPD and severity of illness (χ2 = 8.555, P = 0.073), global improvement (χ2 = 2.662, P = 0.616), or efficacy index (χ2 = 1.491, P = 0.684), suggesting comparable clinical outcomes across settings in these domains.[31,38,39] However, physical health outcomes were significantly associated with outpatient type (χ2 = 18.717, P = 0.000), with CMHCs demonstrating better outcomes, likely due to integrated care approaches.[40,41] No significant associations were found for psychological health (χ2 = 2.397, P = 0.302),[42] social relationships (χ2 = 1.156, P = 0.561),[43] or environmental health (χ2 = 1.058, P = 0.809),[44] implying similar QOL determinants across both healthcare settings. These findings underscore the role of outpatient structure in influencing specific health outcomes, particularly adherence and physical health, while also highlighting the need for broader systemic support across all domains.

Furthermore, this study examined the correlations between medication adherence, severity of illness, and QOL among FW-OPD and CMHC patients using Pearson correlation analyses. Findings revealed that higher medication adherence was significantly associated with increased severity of illness and global improvement, suggesting that patients with more severe symptoms adhered more rigorously to treatment and experienced better outcomes.[45,46] However, medication adherence negatively correlated with physical and psychological health, environmental perception, and social relationships, indicating that adherence may be driven by worsening health rather than perceived well-being. Severity of illness showed strong positive associations with global improvement but negatively correlated with treatment efficacy, physical and psychological health, and environmental perception. Similarly, global improvement was negatively associated with physical and psychological health and environmental perception, reflecting the complex interplay between symptomatic relief and overall well-being.[47] Efficacy index positively correlated with physical, psychological, and environmental domains but not with social relationships. Notably, physical and psychological health showed a strong positive correlation, while other QOL domains demonstrated varied, often non-significant associations.[48] These findings underscore the multifaceted nature of psychiatric treatment outcomes, where improvements in one domain may not uniformly translate across all aspects of QOL, highlighting the need for integrative, patient-centered care approaches.

On the other hand, this study explored the influence of key sociodemographic characteristics: Gender, marital status, education level, occupational status, and OPD attendance on medication adherence, illness severity, and various dimensions of QOL among psychiatric patients. ANOVA results revealed that gender consistently influenced medication adherence, illness severity, global improvement, physical and psychological health, and environmental perception. Notably, women exhibited higher adherence and more favorable psychological outcomes, potentially reflecting gender-based differences in health-seeking behaviors and coping mechanisms. OPD attendance emerged as another significant determinant, particularly affecting illness severity, global improvement, and physical health, emphasizing the role of structured treatment environments in improving outcomes. Education and occupation significantly influenced illness severity, global improvement, treatment efficacy, and environmental perception, underscoring the impact of socioeconomic factors on treatment engagement and health literacy. In contrast, marital status showed no significant effect across all domains, suggesting its limited role in shaping clinical or QOL outcomes. Psychological health was significantly influenced by gender, while social relationships remained unaffected by any of the tested variables, indicating a more complex interplay of environmental and personal factors. While no significant associations were found between sociodemographic variables and the type of mental health service utilized (FW-OPD vs. CMHC), patients at CMHCs reported better medication adherence and higher perceived improvement, although with poorer physical health QOL. These findings highlight the need for tailored, gender- and setting-specific interventions to enhance adherence and QOL in community mental health care.

Henceforth, the social workers play a pivotal role in psychiatric care, particularly in enhancing medication adherence, assessing illness severity, and improving QOL. Utilizing casework methods, they offer individualized care through assessment, psychosocial interventions, and coordination with outpatient and community mental health services.[49,50] Their work includes counseling, psychoeducation, crisis intervention, and advocacy for patient rights and autonomy. Social workers also address social determinants of health, such as housing, employment, and stigma by facilitating access to resources and integrating community and clinical services.[51] Their involvement in data collection, monitoring, and research enhances the quality of evidence, supports policy development, and ensures that psychiatric care is both comprehensive and patient-centered.

Findings from the present study underscore the impact of gender and OPD attendance as significant predictors across multiple domains, including medication adherence, illness severity, global improvement, and QOL. CMHCs demonstrated better medication adherence and psychosocial outcomes, although physical health outcomes were poorer, indicating a need for integrated physical and mental healthcare. The limitations of this cross-sectional study, such as sample size, reliance on self-reported data, and setting-specific generalizability highlight the need for longitudinal, multi-setting research with more diverse diagnoses and objective measures. Future studies should focus on designing and evaluating tailored interventions, leveraging digital tools, and informing policy to support holistic, equitable psychiatric care.

CONCLUSION

This study offers critical insights into the comparative assessment of psychiatric patients attending CMHCs and FW-OPDs, highlighting the influence of outpatient structures on mental health outcomes. Medication adherence was significantly higher among CMHC patients, underscoring the value of structured follow-up and personalized community-based interventions. Although illness severity and global improvement were comparable across groups, CMHC patients showed greater treatment engagement and perceived efficacy, supporting the effectiveness of integrative care models.

QOL outcomes varied, with CMHC patients reporting better psychosocial functioning but poorer physical health, indicating the need for holistic approaches that integrate mental and physical healthcare. Gender and OPD attendance significantly influenced adherence, illness severity, global improvement, and QOL, reflecting the importance of demographic and contextual factors in treatment outcomes. Further analyses confirmed that outpatient type significantly impacted medication adherence but not clinical severity or improvement indices, suggesting that both care models can achieve similar clinical results, though through different mechanisms of engagement.

These findings advocate for patient-centered, integrative care strategies that enhance treatment adherence and psychosocial well-being, particularly within community settings. However, targeted interventions are needed to address physical health disparities in CMHC populations. Social workers play a central role in this framework, providing access, psychosocial support, and advocacy for comprehensive psychiatric care. Future research should adopt longitudinal designs, include diverse populations, and integrate objective adherence measures and digital tools to inform scalable, policy-driven improvements in mental health care delivery.

Authors’ contributions:

NSR: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, data curation, formal analysis, writing – original draft, and visualization. Conducted the entire research work including the formulation of objectives, data collection and analysis, and writing of the manuscript. BGA and SK: Supervision, conceptualization, methodology, writing – review and editing, and project administration. They provided continuous guidance throughout the research process, including support in refining the research questions, developing the methodology, and interpreting findings. They also offered critical feedback on manuscript drafts, helped improve the clarity and coherence of arguments, and ensured academic rigor and relevance.

Ethical approval:

The research/study approved by the Institutional Review Board at Dharwad Institute of Mental Health And Neurosciences, number DIMHANS/IEC/13/2023-24, dated April 24, 2023.

Declaration of patient consent:

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent.

Conflicts of interest:

There are no conflicts of interest.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation:

The authors confirm that there was no use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the writing or editing of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.

Financial support and sponsorship: Nil.

References

  1. , , , , , , et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388:1545-602.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. . Community mental health care in India. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2005;17:103-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. , , . Medication adherence: A review of the literature and implications for clinical practice. J Psychiatr Pract. 2009;15:34-44.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , et al. Medication adherence of psychiatric patients in an outpatient setting. African J Pharm Pharmacol. 2012;6:608-12.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , . Perspectives on reasons of medication nonadherence in psychiatric patients. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:87-93.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , . Factors influencing medication adherence among patients with severe mental disorders from the perspective of mental health professionals. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;22:22.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , . Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: What is the difference. ? Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34:645-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , . Quality of life in the evaluation support systems. Eval Program Plann. 1982;5:69-79.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , . Quality of life in severe mental illness. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2002;14:175-84.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. . Quality of life: The concept. J Palliat Care. 1992;8:8-13.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. , . What is a mental disorder? Evaluating the lay concept of Mental Ill Health in the United States. BMC Psychiatry. 2023;23:224.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , , , et al. Severity of illness: Concepts and measurements. Lancet. 1987;2:1506-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. . Insurance for mental illness: Government schemes must show the way. Indian J Psychiatry. 2019;61:113-4.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. . Department of Psychiatry, NIMHANS Welfare benefits for persons with psychiatric disability. Available from: https://nimhans.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/nimhans_welfare-benefits-for-persons-with-psychiatric-disability-english-sep-2016.pdf [Last accessed on 2024 Sep 04]
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , . Evaluation of treatment adherence in outpatients with schizophrenia. Indian Psychiatry J. 2017;26:215-22.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , , , et al. Current insights of community mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness: A scoping review scoping review. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14:1156235.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. . View of district mental health program: Inception, evolution and challenges. Indian J Behav Sci. 2023;26:4-11.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , , , . Psychotropic medication non-adherence and its associated factors among patients with major psychiatric disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2020;9:17.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. , , . Patient related outcome measures dovepress nonadherence with antipsychotic medication in schizophrenia: Challenges and management strategies. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2014;5:43-62.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , , , et al. Adherence to medication and quality of life in people with schizophrenia: Results of a European multicenter study. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2006;194:746-52.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. , , , , , , et al. Course of adherence to medication and quality of life in people with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2009;165:224-33.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. , , , . Gender differences in health-related quality of life in people with severe mental illness. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0229236.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. , , , , , . Interrelationships of psychiatric symptom severity, medical comorbidity, and functioning in schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57:1102-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. , , . Disengagement from mental health treatment among individuals with schizophrenia and strategies for facilitating connections to care: A review of the literature. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35:696-703.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. , , , , , . Relationship of community integration of persons with severe mental illness and mental health service intensity. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65:822-5.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. , , , , , , et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:39.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , , , , et al. Challenges and opportunities in global mental health: A research-to-practice perspective. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2017;19:28.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. , , . Quality of life in schizophrenic patients: the influence of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and satisfaction with social support. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2018;40:202-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. , , . Reliability and validity of a new Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) for the psychoses. Schizophr Res. 2000;42:241-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. , , . The improved clinical global impression scale (iCGI): Development and validation in depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2007;7:7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. . Assessment manual for psychopharmacology United States: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; . p. :217-22.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1403-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. . WHOQOL-BREF: Introduction, administration, scoring and generic version of the assessment: Field trial version Geneva: World Health Organization; . p. :1-16.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. . Evaluation of the health-related quality of life of Emirati people with diabetes: Integration of sociodemographic and disease-related variables. East Mediterr Health J. 2011;17:825-30.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. , , . Treatment engagement of individuals experiencing mental illness: Review and update. World Psychiatry. 2016;15:13-20.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. , . Patterns of usual care for schizophrenia: Initial results from the schizophrenia patient outcomes research team (PORT) client survey. Schizophr Bull. 1998;24:11-20. discussion 20-32
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. , , , , , , et al. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62:593-602.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. , , . Temporal processing in schizophrenia: Effects of task-difficulty on behavioral discrimination and neuronal responses. Schizophr Res. 2010;127:123-30.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. , . Health reform and the affordable care act: The importance of mental health treatment to achieving the triple aim Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) NIH Public Access. J Psychosom Res. 2013;74:4.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. , . Closing the false divide: Sustainable approaches to integrating mental health services into primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32:404-14.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. , , . Treatment for cooccurring mental and substance use disorders in five state Medicaid programs. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58:942-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. , . Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98:310-57.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. , . Social determinants of health: The solid facts (2nd ed). Geneva: World Health Organization; . p. :23-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. , , , , , , et al. Medication compliance and persistence: Terminology and definitions. Value Health. 2008;11:44-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. , , , . Patient adherence and medical treatment outcomes A meta-analysis. Med Care. 2002;40:794-811.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. , , . Non-adherence to medication in patients with psychotic disorders: Epidemiology, contributing factors and management strategies. World Psychiatry. 2013;12:216-26.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. , , , , , , et al. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1209-23.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. . Social casework practice in psychiatric setting in India. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236121518 [Last accessed on 2024 Sep 04]
    [Google Scholar]
  49. , . Social work practice in community mental health. Soc Work. 1981;26:16-24.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Social Work Practice in Mental Health - Canadian association of social workers. Available from: https://www.casw-acts.ca/en/social-work-practice-mental-health [Last accessed on 2024 Sep 04]
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections