BACKGROUND: Rates of self-reported psychotic experiences (SRPEs) in general population samples are high; however the reliability against interview-based assessments and the clinical significance of false-positive (FP) ratings remain unclear. DESIGN: The second Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2, a general population study. METHODS: Trained lay interviewers administered a structured interview assessing psychopathology and psychosocial characteristics in 6646 participants. Participants with at least one SRPE (N = 1084) were reassessed by clinical telephone interview. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of participants with SRPEs were confirmed by clinical interview as true positive (TP). SPREs not confirmed by clinical interview (FP group) generated less help-seeking behavior and occurred less frequently compared with TP experiences (TP group). However, compared with controls without psychotic experiences, the FP group more often displayed mood disorder (relative risk [RR] 1.7, 1.4-2.2), substance use disorder (RR 2.0, 1.6-2.6), cannabis use (RR 1.5, 1.2-1.9), higher levels of neuroticism (RR 1.8, 1.5-2.2), affective dysregulation, and social dysfunction. The FP group also experienced more sexual (RR 2.0, 1.5-2.8) and psychological childhood trauma (RR 2.1, 1.7-2.6) as well as peer victimization (RR 1.5, 1.2-2.0) and recent life events (RR 2.0, 1.6-2.4) than controls without psychotic experiences. Differences between the FP group and the TP group across these domains were much smaller and less conclusive. DISCUSSION: SRPEs not confirmed by clinical interview may represent the softest expression of an extended psychosis phenotype that is phenotypically continuous with clinical psychosis but discontinuous in need for care.
BACKGROUND: Rates of self-reported psychotic experiences (SRPEs) in general population samples are high; however the reliability against interview-based assessments and the clinical significance of false-positive (FP) ratings remain unclear. DESIGN: The second Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2, a general population study. METHODS: Trained lay interviewers administered a structured interview assessing psychopathology and psychosocial characteristics in 6646 participants. Participants with at least one SRPE (N = 1084) were reassessed by clinical telephone interview. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of participants with SRPEs were confirmed by clinical interview as true positive (TP). SPREs not confirmed by clinical interview (FP group) generated less help-seeking behavior and occurred less frequently compared with TP experiences (TP group). However, compared with controls without psychotic experiences, the FP group more often displayed mood disorder (relative risk [RR] 1.7, 1.4-2.2), substance use disorder (RR 2.0, 1.6-2.6), cannabis use (RR 1.5, 1.2-1.9), higher levels of neuroticism (RR 1.8, 1.5-2.2), affective dysregulation, and social dysfunction. The FP group also experienced more sexual (RR 2.0, 1.5-2.8) and psychological childhood trauma (RR 2.1, 1.7-2.6) as well as peer victimization (RR 1.5, 1.2-2.0) and recent life events (RR 2.0, 1.6-2.4) than controls without psychotic experiences. Differences between the FP group and the TP group across these domains were much smaller and less conclusive. DISCUSSION: SRPEs not confirmed by clinical interview may represent the softest expression of an extended psychosis phenotype that is phenotypically continuous with clinical psychosis but discontinuous in need for care.
Authors: J Alonso; M C Angermeyer; S Bernert; R Bruffaerts; T S Brugha; H Bryson; G de Girolamo; R Graaf; K Demyttenaere; I Gasquet; J M Haro; S J Katz; R C Kessler; V Kovess; J P Lépine; J Ormel; G Polidori; L J Russo; G Vilagut; J Almansa; S Arbabzadeh-Bouchez; J Autonell; M Bernal; M A Buist-Bouwman; M Codony; A Domingo-Salvany; M Ferrer; S S Joo; M Martínez-Alonso; H Matschinger; F Mazzi; Z Morgan; P Morosini; C Palacín; B Romera; N Taub; W A M Vollebergh Journal: Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl Date: 2004
Authors: Y van der Steen; I Myin-Germeys; M van Nierop; M Ten Have; R de Graaf; S van Dorsselaer; J van Os; R van Winkel Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Martine van Nierop; Tineke Lataster; Feikje Smeets; Nicole Gunther; Catherine van Zelst; Ron de Graaf; Margreet ten Have; Saskia van Dorsselaer; Maarten Bak; Inez Myin-Germeys; Wolfgang Viechtbauer; Jim van Os; Ruud van Winkel Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Johanna T W Wigman; Martine van Nierop; Wilma A M Vollebergh; Roselind Lieb; Katja Beesdo-Baum; Hans-Ullrich Wittchen; Jim van Os Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Anna R Docherty; Andrey A Shabalin; Daniel E Adkins; Frank Mann; Robert F Krueger; Silviu-Alin Bacanu; Archie Campbell; Caroline Hayward; David J Porteous; Andrew M McIntosh; Kenneth S Kendler Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 9.306