Yvonne de Jong1,2, Cornelis L Mulder2,3, Albert E Boon4,5, Mathijs Deen6,7, Maarten van 't Hof1, Mark van der Gaag8,9. 1. Lucertis Center for Child and Adolescence Psychiatry, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Epidemiological and Psychiatric Research institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Curium-Leiden University Medical Center, Oegstgeest, The Netherlands. 5. Lucertis Center for Child and Adolescence Psychiatry, Capelle a/d IJssel, The Netherlands. 6. Scientific research department, Parnassia Academy, The Hague, The Netherlands. 7. Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. 8. VU University and, EMGO Mental Health and Care Research, Dept. of Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 9. Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, Zoutkeetsingel, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Abstract
AIM: Although the 16-item version of the Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ-16) is used as a screener in the early detection of psychosis risk, little is known about PQ-16 scores among adolescents referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. We assessed such scores in adolescents referred to these services in the Netherlands, and also their associations with age, gender, diagnosis and level of functioning. METHODS: The PQ-16 was added to regular intake procedures. RESULTS: The PQ-16 was completed by 176 adolescents (mean age 14.58 years; standard deviation = 1.50; 55.1% females), 34.7% of whom scored above the current cut-off score of ≥6 items. Positive item scores with the highest odds ratio for scoring above the cut-off were related to tasting or smelling things, seeing things and hearing thoughts out aloud. There were no age-, gender- or disorder-related differences in total scores on the PQ-16. Lower Global Assessment of Functioning scores were associated with higher total scores on the PQ-16. CONCLUSIONS: The PQ-16 is easy to implement in routine assessment and can be useful to bring up potential psychotic symptoms for further exploration in an early stage, especially in adolescents with low Global Assessment of Functioning scores. The PQ-16 total scores were not confounded by differences in age, gender or disorder. Future research should investigate the true nature of PQ-16 items and whether the item scores and cut-off scores of the PQ-16 in adolescence have any predictive value regarding the development of an ultra high-risk status, a psychotic disorder or other mental disorders.
AIM: Although the 16-item version of the Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ-16) is used as a screener in the early detection of psychosis risk, little is known about PQ-16 scores among adolescents referred to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. We assessed such scores in adolescents referred to these services in the Netherlands, and also their associations with age, gender, diagnosis and level of functioning. METHODS: The PQ-16 was added to regular intake procedures. RESULTS: The PQ-16 was completed by 176 adolescents (mean age 14.58 years; standard deviation = 1.50; 55.1% females), 34.7% of whom scored above the current cut-off score of ≥6 items. Positive item scores with the highest odds ratio for scoring above the cut-off were related to tasting or smelling things, seeing things and hearing thoughts out aloud. There were no age-, gender- or disorder-related differences in total scores on the PQ-16. Lower Global Assessment of Functioning scores were associated with higher total scores on the PQ-16. CONCLUSIONS: The PQ-16 is easy to implement in routine assessment and can be useful to bring up potential psychotic symptoms for further exploration in an early stage, especially in adolescents with low Global Assessment of Functioning scores. The PQ-16 total scores were not confounded by differences in age, gender or disorder. Future research should investigate the true nature of PQ-16 items and whether the item scores and cut-off scores of the PQ-16 in adolescence have any predictive value regarding the development of an ultra high-risk status, a psychotic disorder or other mental disorders.
Authors: Saliha El Bouhaddani; Lieke van Domburgh; Barbara Schaefer; Theo A H Doreleijers; Wim Veling Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2019-04-09 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Saliha El Bouhaddani; Lieke van Domburgh; Barbara Schaefer; Theo A H Doreleijers; Wim Veling Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Vera Brink; Catheleine van Driel; Saliha El Bouhaddani; Klaas J Wardenaar; Lieke van Domburgh; Barbara Schaefer; Marije van Beilen; Agna A Bartels-Velthuis; Wim Veling Journal: Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: Mhairi McDonald; Eleni Christoforidou; Nicola Van Rijsbergen; Ruchika Gajwani; Joachim Gross; Andrew I Gumley; Stephen M Lawrie; Matthias Schwannauer; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Peter J Uhlhaas Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Marieke Broersen; Nynke Frieswijk; Hans Kroon; Ad A Vermulst; Daan H M Creemers Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Daniel Freeman; Bryony Sheaves; Guy M Goodwin; Ly-Mee Yu; Alecia Nickless; Paul J Harrison; Richard Emsley; Annemarie I Luik; Russell G Foster; Vanashree Wadekar; Christopher Hinds; Andrew Gumley; Ray Jones; Stafford Lightman; Steve Jones; Richard Bentall; Peter Kinderman; Georgina Rowse; Traolach Brugha; Mark Blagrove; Alice M Gregory; Leanne Fleming; Elaine Walklet; Cris Glazebrook; E Bethan Davies; Chris Hollis; Gillian Haddock; Bev John; Mark Coulson; David Fowler; Katherine Pugh; John Cape; Peter Moseley; Gary Brown; Claire Hughes; Marc Obonsawin; Sian Coker; Edward Watkins; Matthias Schwannauer; Kenneth MacMahon; A Niroshan Siriwardena; Colin A Espie Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 27.083