Literature DB >> 31094226

Using the K-SADS psychosis screen to identify people with early psychosis or psychosis risk syndromes.

Thomas Tsuji1, Peter Phalen2,3, Pamela Rakhshan Rouhakhtar1, Zachary Millman1, Kristin Bussell2,4, Elizabeth Thompson5, Caroline Demro6, Caroline Roemer1, Gloria Reeves2, Jason Schiffman1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current methods to identify people with psychosis risk involve administration of specialized tools such as the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS), but these methods have not been widely adopted. Validation of a more multipurpose assessment tool-such as the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS)-may increase the scope of identification efforts.
METHODS: We assessed the correspondence between SIPS-determined clinical high risk/early psychosis (CHR/early psychosis) status and K-SADS psychosis screen (child and parent reports and their combination) in a sample of 147 help-seeking individuals aged 12-25. Detailed classification results are reported.
RESULTS: Both the child and parent interviews on the K-SADS psychosis screen were strongly predictive of CHR/early psychosis status, although parent reports contributed no significant additional information beyond child reports. Across informants, the presence of either subthreshold hallucinations or subthreshold delusions was highly suggestive of CHR/early psychosis status as determined by SIPS interview (78% (child) and 74% (parent) accuracy).
CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold scores on the two-item K-SADS psychosis screen may be good indicators of the presence or absence of early signs of psychosis. The option of using a non-specialized assessment such as the K-SADS as a staged approach to assess for CHR/early psychosis status could increase rates of early psychosis screening and treatment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical high-risk; early psychosis; psychosis; schizophrenia; ultrahigh risk

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31094226      PMCID: PMC7263389          DOI: 10.1177/1359104519846582

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry        ISSN: 1359-1045            Impact factor:   2.544


  15 in total

1.  Psychosis risk screening with the Prodromal Questionnaire--brief version (PQ-B).

Authors:  Rachel L Loewy; Rahel Pearson; Sophia Vinogradov; Carrie E Bearden; Tyrone D Cannon
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 4.939

2.  Prodromal assessment with the structured interview for prodromal syndromes and the scale of prodromal symptoms: predictive validity, interrater reliability, and training to reliability.

Authors:  Tandy J Miller; Thomas H McGlashan; Joanna L Rosen; Kristen Cadenhead; Tyrone Cannon; Joseph Ventura; William McFarlane; Diana O Perkins; Godfrey D Pearlson; Scott W Woods
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 9.306

3.  At risk or not at risk? A meta-analysis of the prognostic accuracy of psychometric interviews for psychosis prediction.

Authors:  Paolo Fusar-Poli; Marco Cappucciati; Grazia Rutigliano; Frauke Schultze-Lutter; Ilaria Bonoldi; Stefan Borgwardt; Anita Riecher-Rössler; Jean Addington; Diana Perkins; Scott W Woods; Thomas H McGlashan; Jimmy Lee; Joachim Klosterkötter; Alison R Yung; Philip McGuire
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 49.548

4.  Perceived social stress and symptom severity among help-seeking adolescents with versus without clinical high-risk for psychosis.

Authors:  Zachary B Millman; Steven C Pitts; Elizabeth Thompson; Emily R Kline; Caroline Demro; Marc J Weintraub; Jordan E DeVylder; Vijay A Mittal; Gloria M Reeves; Jason Schiffman
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 4.939

5.  Comprehensive Versus Usual Community Care for First-Episode Psychosis: 2-Year Outcomes From the NIMH RAISE Early Treatment Program.

Authors:  John M Kane; Delbert G Robinson; Nina R Schooler; Kim T Mueser; David L Penn; Robert A Rosenheck; Jean Addington; Mary F Brunette; Christoph U Correll; Sue E Estroff; Patricia Marcy; James Robinson; Piper S Meyer-Kalos; Jennifer D Gottlieb; Shirley M Glynn; David W Lynde; Ronny Pipes; Benji T Kurian; Alexander L Miller; Susan T Azrin; Amy B Goldstein; Joanne B Severe; Haiqun Lin; Kyaw J Sint; Majnu John; Robert K Heinssen
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 18.112

6.  Predicting psychosis: meta-analysis of transition outcomes in individuals at high clinical risk.

Authors:  Paolo Fusar-Poli; Ilaria Bonoldi; Alison R Yung; Stefan Borgwardt; Matthew J Kempton; Lucia Valmaggia; Francesco Barale; Edgardo Caverzasi; Philip McGuire
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2012-03

7.  Considerations for the development and implementation of brief screening tools in the identification of early psychosis.

Authors:  Jason Schiffman
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 4.939

8.  Prediction of psychosis in youth at high clinical risk: a multisite longitudinal study in North America.

Authors:  Tyrone D Cannon; Kristin Cadenhead; Barbara Cornblatt; Scott W Woods; Jean Addington; Elaine Walker; Larry J Seidman; Diana Perkins; Ming Tsuang; Thomas McGlashan; Robert Heinssen
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2008-01

Review 9.  Efficacy and safety of pharmacological and psychological interventions for the treatment of psychosis and schizophrenia in children, adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Megan R Stafford; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Christina E Loucas; Anthony James; Chris Hollis; Max Birchwood; Tim Kendall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Towards a Standard Psychometric Diagnostic Interview for Subjects at Ultra High Risk of Psychosis: CAARMS versus SIPS.

Authors:  P Fusar-Poli; M Cappucciati; G Rutigliano; T Y Lee; Q Beverly; I Bonoldi; J Lelli; S J Kaar; E Gago; M Rocchetti; R Patel; V Bhavsar; S Tognin; S Badger; M Calem; K Lim; J S Kwon; J Perez; P McGuire
Journal:  Psychiatry J       Date:  2016-05-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.