Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Psychopathology and Early Intervention Lab, II Department of Psychiatry, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Psychol Med. 2019 Oct;49(13):2134-2140. doi: 10.1017/S0033291719001740. Epub 2019 Jul 24.
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.
自 20 世纪 90 年代以来,针对有潜在精神病风险的个体的设施如雨后春笋般涌现,在很短的时间内成为许多国家标准精神科基础设施的一部分。在病情恶化之前预防严重精神障碍的想法是值得称赞的,早期数据确实强烈表明,干预越早,结果越好。在本文中,作者提供了四个理由,说明他们认为早期发现或前驱期设施应该更名,并重新考虑其治疗目标。首先,未经治疗的精神病持续时间与结果之间的关联在经验上是成立的,但多年来变得越来越弱。此外,其对被认为有风险的人群的适用性仍然难以捉摸。其次,用于识别未来精神病的工具容易受到许多尚未得到充分控制的偏差的影响。这些工具都无法提供准确的预后。第三,有风险的患者向精神病转变的比率可能比最初想象的要低,早期干预预防未来精神病成功的证据虽然有希望,但仍存在争议。也许最重要的是,治疗没有希望导向。患者或多或少地被告知精神分裂症正在逼近他们,这可能会给那些实际上不会发展出精神病的个体带来污名化。此外,自我污名化与自杀和抑郁有关。作者建议,对寻求治疗的有心理问题但没有明确诊断的个体的治疗应基于需求,并且应淡化精神病风险,因为它只是许多可能结果之一,包括完全缓解。前驱期诊所不应被废除,而应更名和重组。虽然已经存在这样的诊所,但需要促进转型过程。