Suppr超能文献

对有和没有护理需求的人群持续性精神病体验评估的临床相关性:一项实验研究。

Clinical relevance of appraisals of persistent psychotic experiences in people with and without a need for care: an experimental study.

作者信息

Peters Emmanuelle, Ward Thomas, Jackson Mike, Woodruff Peter, Morgan Craig, McGuire Philip, Garety Philippa A

机构信息

Department of Psychology, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK; South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Department of Psychology, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK.

出版信息

Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Dec;4(12):927-936. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30409-1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cognitive models of psychosis propose that appraisals (ie, the interpretation and meaning attributed to experiences) are central to the transition from anomalous experiences to psychotic symptoms. In the Unusual Experiences Enquiry (UNIQUE) study, we investigated the role of appraisals by comparing individuals with persistent psychotic experiences without a need for care with patients and people without psychotic experiences.

METHOD

Eligible participants were patients with diagnosed psychotic disorders (clinical group) and adults in the general population with persistent psychotic experiences (non-clinical group) and without psychotic experiences (controls). The appraisals of psychotic experiences among people in the non-clinical and clinical groups were assessed by an in-depth interview, and appraisals of anomalous experiences induced by three experimental tasks were compared between all groups.

FINDINGS

We recruited 259 participants, 84 in the clinical group, 92 in the non-clinical group, and 83 controls. The clinical group was more likely than the non-clinical group to display paranoid, personalising interpretations of their psychotic experiences (p<0·008; p values are Sidak adjusted to account for multiple testing) and less likely to have normalising (p<0·008) and supernatural (p=0·039) explanations. The clinical group also appraised their psychotic experiences as being more negative, dangerous, and abnormal and less controllable than the non-clinical group (all p<0·005), but groups did not differ for attributions of general externality (p=0·44). For experimentally induced anomalous experiences, the clinical group endorsed more threatening appraisals on all tasks than the non-clinical group (p<0·003), who did not differ from the control group (p=0·07-0·6). The pattern was similar for ratings of salience, distress, personal relevance, global threat, and incorporation of the induced experiences into participants' own psychotic experiences.

INTERPRETATION

We provide robust evidence that the way psychotic experiences are appraised differs between individuals with and without a need for care, supporting cognitive models of psychosis. Specifically, the absence of paranoid and threatening appraisals might protect against persistent psychotic experiences becoming clinically relevant.

FUNDING

UK Medical Research Council.

摘要

背景

精神病的认知模型提出,评估(即对经历赋予的解释和意义)对于从异常经历转变为精神病症状至关重要。在异常经历调查(UNIQUE)研究中,我们通过比较有持续性精神病体验但无需护理的个体与患者以及无精神病体验的人,来研究评估的作用。

方法

符合条件的参与者为被诊断患有精神病性障碍的患者(临床组)、普通人群中具有持续性精神病体验的成年人(非临床组)以及无精神病体验的人(对照组)。通过深度访谈评估非临床组和临床组人群对精神病体验的评估,并比较所有组对三项实验任务诱发的异常体验的评估。

结果

我们招募了259名参与者,临床组84人,非临床组92人,对照组83人。临床组比非临床组更有可能对其精神病体验表现出偏执、个人化的解释(p<0·008;p值经西德克校正以考虑多重检验),而进行正常化解释(p<0·008)和超自然解释(p=0·039)的可能性较小。临床组也比非临床组更倾向于将其精神病体验评估为更消极、危险、异常且更难控制(所有p<0·005),但两组在总体外部归因方面没有差异(p=0·44)。对于实验诱发的异常体验,临床组在所有任务上比非临床组更倾向于认可更具威胁性的评估(p<0·003),非临床组与对照组没有差异(p=0·07 - 0·6)。在显著性、痛苦程度、个人相关性、总体威胁以及将诱发体验纳入参与者自身精神病体验的评分方面,模式相似。

解读

我们提供了有力证据表明,有护理需求者和无护理需求者对精神病体验的评估方式不同,这支持了精神病认知模型。具体而言,缺乏偏执和威胁性评估可能防止持续性精神病体验发展为具有临床相关性。

资助

英国医学研究理事会

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e21e/5714590/aaed172f116a/gr1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验