Kristen A Woodberry1, Kate S Powers2, Caitlin Bryant3, Donna Downing2, Mary B Verdi2, Katherine M Elacqua2, Audrey R L Reuman4, Leda Kennedy5, Daniel I Shapiro6, Michelle L West7, Debbie Huang8, Francesca M Crump9, Margaux M Grivel10, Drew Blasco10, Shaynna N Herrera11, Cheryl M Corcoran12, Larry J Seidman13, Bruce G Link14, William R McFarlane15, Lawrence H Yang16. 1. Center for Psychiatric Research, Maine Medical Center, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Tufts School of Medicine, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, United States of America. Electronic address: kwoodberry@mmc.org. 2. Center for Psychiatric Research, Maine Medical Center, United States of America. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United States of America; Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, United States of America. 4. Bowdoin College, United States of America. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United States of America; New York Psychiatric Institute, Columbia University, United States of America. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of California Davis, United States of America. 7. Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, United States of America; Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado School of Medicine, United States of America. 8. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, United States of America. 9. Department of Psychology, Rowan University, United States of America. 10. School of Global Public Health, New York University, United States of America. 11. Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States of America. 12. Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, United States of America; James J Peter Veterans Affairs Medical Center, United States of America. 13. Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, United States of America. 14. Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, United States of America. 15. Center for Psychiatric Research, Maine Medical Center, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, Tufts School of Medicine, United States of America. 16. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, United States of America; School of Global Public Health, New York University, United States of America.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite the appeal of early intervention in psychosis, there is concern that identifying youth as having high psychosis risk (PR) may trigger stigma. This study employed a pre-post design to measure change in PR participants' emotions about PR upon being told of their PR status and according to whether this was the first time receiving this information. METHODS: Participants (n = 54) identified as at PR via structured interview rated their emotions about PR before and after being told they were at PR. Qualitative analyses explored the valence of participant reflections on being given this information. RESULTS: Participants reported significantly less negative emotion after being told of their PR status (p < .001), regardless of whether they were hearing this for the first time (p = .72). There was no change in positive emotions or the predominant belief that they should keep their PR status private. Most participants commented positively about the process of feedback but negatively about its impact on their self-perceptions and/or expectations of others' perceptions of them. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to collect pre-post data related to being told one is at PR and to examine quantitative and qualitative responses across and within individuals. For a majority of participants, clinical feedback stimulated negative stereotypes even as it relieved some distress. To actively address internalized stigma, clinicians providing feedback to PR youth must attend to the positive and negative impacts on how youth think about themselves as well as how they feel.
OBJECTIVE: Despite the appeal of early intervention in psychosis, there is concern that identifying youth as having high psychosis risk (PR) may trigger stigma. This study employed a pre-post design to measure change in PR participants' emotions about PR upon being told of their PR status and according to whether this was the first time receiving this information. METHODS: Participants (n = 54) identified as at PR via structured interview rated their emotions about PR before and after being told they were at PR. Qualitative analyses explored the valence of participant reflections on being given this information. RESULTS: Participants reported significantly less negative emotion after being told of their PR status (p < .001), regardless of whether they were hearing this for the first time (p = .72). There was no change in positive emotions or the predominant belief that they should keep their PR status private. Most participants commented positively about the process of feedback but negatively about its impact on their self-perceptions and/or expectations of others' perceptions of them. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to collect pre-post data related to being told one is at PR and to examine quantitative and qualitative responses across and within individuals. For a majority of participants, clinical feedback stimulated negative stereotypes even as it relieved some distress. To actively address internalized stigma, clinicians providing feedback to PR youth must attend to the positive and negative impacts on how youth think about themselves as well as how they feel.
Authors: Nicolas Rüsch; Karsten Heekeren; Anastasia Theodoridou; Mario Müller; Patrick W Corrigan; Benjamin Mayer; Sibylle Metzler; Diane Dvorsky; Susanne Walitza; Wulf Rössler Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2015-05-31 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Kristen A Woodberry; Larry J Seidman; Caitlin Bryant; Jean Addington; Carrie E Bearden; Kristin S Cadenhead; Tyrone D Cannon; Barbara A Cornblatt; Thomas H McGlashan; Daniel H Mathalon; Diana O Perkins; Ming T Tsuang; Elaine F Walker; Scott W Woods Journal: J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol Date: 2016-10-05
Authors: Lawrence H Yang; Kristen A Woodberry; Bruce G Link; Cheryl M Corcoran; Caitlin Bryant; Daniel I Shapiro; Donna Downing; Ragy R Girgis; Gary Brucato; Debbie Huang; Francesca M Crump; Mary Verdi; William R McFarlane; Larry J Seidman Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Barbara A Cornblatt; Andrea M Auther; Tara Niendam; Christopher W Smith; Jamie Zinberg; Carrie E Bearden; Tyrone D Cannon Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2007-04-17 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Mark van der Gaag; Dorien H Nieman; Judith Rietdijk; Sara Dragt; Helga K Ising; Rianne M C Klaassen; Maarten Koeter; Pim Cuijpers; Lex Wunderink; Don H Linszen Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2012-09-01 Impact factor: 9.306