In people suffering from schizophrenia, major areas of everyday life are impaired, including independent living, productive activities and social relationships. Enhanced understanding of factors that hinder real‐life functioning is vital for treatments to translate into more positive outcomes. The goal of the present study was to identify predictors of real‐life functioning in people with schizophrenia, and to assess their relative contribution. Based on previous literature and clinical experience, several factors were selected and grouped into three categories: illness‐related variables, personal resources and context‐related factors. Some of these variables were never investigated before in relationship with real‐life functioning. In 921 patients with schizophrenia living in the community, we found that variables relevant to the disease, personal resources and social context explain 53.8% of real‐life functioning variance in a structural equation model. Neurocognition exhibited the strongest, though indirect, association with real‐life functioning. Positive symptoms and disorganization, as well as avolition, proved to have significant direct and indirect effects, while depression had no significant association and poor emotional expression was only indirectly and weakly related to real‐life functioning. Availability of a disability pension and access to social and family incentives also showed a significant direct association with functioning. Social cognition, functional capacity, resilience, internalized stigma and engagement with mental health services served as mediators. The observed complex associations among investigated predictors, mediators and real‐life functioning strongly suggest that integrated and personalized programs should be provided as standard treatment to people with schizophrenia.

Background: During the last decades, a renewed interest for negative symptoms (NS) was brought about by the increased awareness that they interfere severely with real-life functioning, particularly when they are primary and persistent. Methods: In this guidance paper, we provide a systematic review of the evidence and elaborate several recommendations for the conceptualization and assessment of NS in clinical trials and practice. Results: Expert consensus and systematic reviews have provided guidance for the optimal assessment of primary and persistent negative symptoms; second-generation rating scales, which provide a better assessment of the experiential domains, are available; however, NS are still poorly assessed both in research and clinical settings. This European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance recommends the use of persistent negative symptoms (PNS) construct in the context of clinical trials and highlights the need for further efforts to make the definition of PNS consistent across studies in order to exclude as much as possible secondary negative symptoms. We also encourage clinicians to use second-generation scales, at least to complement first-generation ones. The EPA guidance further recommends the evidence-based exclusion of several items included in first-generation scales from any NS summary or factor score to improve NS measurement in research and clinical settings. Self-rated instruments are suggested to further complement observer-rated scales in NS assessment. Several recommendations are provided for the identification of secondary negative symptoms in clinical settings. Conclusions: The dissemination of this guidance paper may promote the development of national guidelines on negative symptom assessment and ultimately improve the care of people with schizophrenia.