Literature DB >> 31337458

Four reasons why early detection centers for psychosis should be renamed and their treatment targets reconsidered: we should not catastrophize a future we can neither reliably predict nor change.

Steffen Moritz1, Łukasz Gawęda1,2, Andreas Heinz3, Jürgen Gallinat1.   

Abstract

Since the 1990s, facilities for individuals at putative risk for psychosis have mushroomed and within a very short time have become part of the standard psychiatric infrastructure in many countries. The idea of preventing a severe mental disorder before its exacerbation is laudable, and early data indeed strongly suggested that the sooner the intervention, the better the outcome. In this paper, the authors provide four reasons why they think that early detection or prodromal facilities should be renamed and their treatment targets reconsidered. First, the association between the duration of untreated psychosis and outcome is empirically established but has become increasingly weak over the years. Moreover, its applicability to those who are considered at risk remains elusive. Second, instruments designed to identify future psychosis are prone to many biases that are not yet sufficiently controlled. None of these instruments allows an even remotely precise prognosis. Third, the rate of transition to psychosis in at-risk patients is likely lower than initially thought, and evidence for the success of early intervention in preventing future psychosis is promising but still equivocal. Perhaps most importantly, the treatment is not hope-oriented. Patients are more or less told that schizophrenia is looming over them, which may stigmatize individuals who will never, in fact, develop psychosis. In addition self-stigma has been associated with suicidality and depression. The authors recommend that treatment of help-seeking individuals with mental problems but no established diagnosis should be need-based, and the risk of psychosis should be de-emphasized as it is only one of many possible outcomes, including full remission. Prodromal clinics should not be abolished but should be renamed and restructured. Such clinics exist, but the transformation process needs to be facilitated.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Basic symptoms; early detection; first episode; prodromal clinics; psychosis

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31337458     DOI: 10.1017/S0033291719001740

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Med        ISSN: 0033-2917            Impact factor:   7.723


  11 in total

1.  Association of preceding psychosis risk states and non-psychotic mental disorders with incidence of clinical psychosis in the general population: a prospective study in the NEMESIS-2 cohort.

Authors:  Sinan Guloksuz; Lotta-Katrin Pries; Margreet Ten Have; Ron de Graaf; Saskia van Dorsselaer; Boris Klingenberg; Maarten Bak; Bochao D Lin; Kristel R van Eijk; Philippe Delespaul; Therese van Amelsvoort; Jurjen J Luykx; Bart P F Rutten; Jim van Os
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 49.548

2.  Self-stigma in Serious Mental Illness: A Systematic Review of Frequency, Correlates, and Consequences.

Authors:  Julien Dubreucq; Julien Plasse; Nicolas Franck
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2021-08-21       Impact factor: 9.306

3.  Preventive psychiatry: a blueprint for improving the mental health of young people.

Authors:  Paolo Fusar-Poli; Christoph U Correll; Celso Arango; Michael Berk; Vikram Patel; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 79.683

Review 4.  Psychotic-Like Experiences: A Challenge in Definition and Assessment.

Authors:  Barbara Hinterbuchinger; Nilufar Mossaheb
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2021-03-29       Impact factor: 4.157

Review 5.  Do DSM classifications help or hinder
drug development?
.

Authors:  Michael Davidson; Cristian Gabos-Grecu
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 5.986

Review 6.  Structural and functional imaging markers for susceptibility to psychosis.

Authors:  Christina Andreou; Stefan Borgwardt
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 15.992

Review 7.  Looking at Intergenerational Risk Factors in Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: New Frontiers for Early Vulnerability Identification?

Authors:  Michele Poletti; Eva Gebhardt; Lorenzo Pelizza; Antonio Preti; Andrea Raballo
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 4.157

8.  Prevention of psychosis: moving on from the at-risk mental state to universal primary prevention.

Authors:  Robin M Murray; Anthony S David; Olesya Ajnakina
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 7.723

9.  The reality of at risk mental state services: a response to recent criticisms.

Authors:  Alison R Yung; Stephen J Wood; Ashok Malla; Barnaby Nelson; Patrick McGorry; Jai Shah
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 7.723

10.  What makes the psychosis 'clinical high risk' state risky: psychosis itself or the co-presence of a non-psychotic disorder?

Authors:  Laila Hasmi; Lotta-Katrin Pries; Margreet Ten Have; Ron de Graaf; Saskia van Dorsselaer; Maarten Bak; Gunter Kenis; Alexander Richards; Bochao D Lin; Michael C O'Donovan; Jurjen J Luykx; Bart P F Rutten; Sinan Guloksuz; Jim van Os
Journal:  Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 6.892

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.