Columbia University, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, 722 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA.
Schizophr Res. 2010 Jul;120(1-3):42-8. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2010.03.012. Epub 2010 Apr 18.
While the "clinical high-risk state" for psychosis has demonstrated good reliability and fair predictive validity for psychotic disorders, over 50% of identified subjects do not progress to psychosis. Despite the benefits that early detection and treatment might offer, debate concerning the official inclusion of a "psychosis risk syndrome" in the upcoming DSM-V frequently involves concerns about the impact of stigma on patients, families and institutions. We add to this debate by providing an analysis of the theoretical and empirical stigma literature to evaluate the potential effects of stigma associated with the psychosis risk syndrome. Theorists' conceptualizations of how stigma exerts its negative effects emphasize internalization of pejorative societal stereotypes ('self-stigma'), negative emotional reactions, harmful behavioral coping strategies, and structural discrimination as key mechanisms. Studies assessing the comparative effects of symptomatic behavior when compared with a psychiatric diagnosis label in predicting rejecting social attitudes indicate that treating symptomatic behaviors is likely to diminish overall stigma. However, any publically held 'preexisting conceptions' about what a psychosis risk syndrome means are still likely to exert negative effects. Additionally, particular features of this syndrome--that it occurs during adolescence when identity formation may be in flux--may also shape manifestations of stigma. Utilizing other well-established 'at-risk' conditions (e.g., genetic susceptibility) to model potential discrimination for this syndrome, we suggest that future discrimination is likely to occur in insurance and family domains. We conclude by proposing stigma measurement strategies, including recommending that field trials prior to DSM-V adopt systematic measures to assess any stigma that this psychosis risk syndrome might confer via future community use.
虽然精神病的“临床高风险状态”已经证明了其在精神病障碍方面具有良好的可靠性和相当的预测效度,但超过 50%的被识别出的个体并未发展为精神病。尽管早期发现和治疗可能会带来好处,但关于在即将到来的 DSM-V 中正式纳入“精神病风险综合征”的争论经常涉及到耻辱感对患者、家庭和机构的影响。我们通过提供对理论和经验耻辱感文献的分析,为这一争论增添了新的内容,以评估与精神病风险综合征相关的耻辱感的潜在影响。理论家对耻辱感如何产生负面影响的概念化强调了对社会贬低刻板印象的内化(“自我耻辱感”)、负面情绪反应、有害的行为应对策略以及结构性歧视作为关键机制。评估症状行为与精神病诊断标签相比在预测排斥社会态度方面的比较效果的研究表明,治疗症状行为可能会降低整体耻辱感。然而,公众对精神病风险综合征意味着什么的“先入为主的观念”仍可能产生负面影响。此外,该综合征的某些特征——它发生在青少年时期,此时身份认同可能正在发生变化——也可能影响耻辱感的表现。利用其他成熟的“风险”条件(例如遗传易感性)来模拟该综合征的潜在歧视,我们认为,未来的歧视可能会出现在保险和家庭领域。最后,我们提出了耻辱感测量策略,包括建议在 DSM-V 之前的现场试验中采用系统措施,以评估该精神病风险综合征在未来社区使用中可能带来的任何耻辱感。