4.7 Article

Grouping affective psychoses in early intervention: Justification for specific treatment guidelines

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 314, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114690

Keywords

Affective psychosis; Diagnosis; First-episode; Functional outcome; Symptoms

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Affective psychoses share similarities in terms of sociodemographic variables, symptom progression, and outcomes, suggesting they can be grouped together for treatment strategies.
The concept of affective psychosis regroups psychotic disorders with mood syndrome. Previous studies provided evidence to support a dichotomy between affective and non-affective psychoses although questions remain regarding the utility and validity of such a category to develop clinical guidelines. The aim of this study is to explore similarities and differences within affective psychoses to question whether strategies would apply to all the diagnoses falling under this umbrella term. Using Bayesian model comparison methods, we explored the homogeneity of the characteristics of firstepisode affective patients (N = 77) treated in a specialized 3-year early intervention in psychosis programme. Our analysis revealed affective psychoses display many similarities regarding socio-demographic variables, the course of positive and manic symptoms over three years, and outcome at discharge. Our results did not support the heterogeneous model. However, despite no significant differences in the course of symptoms with the major depressive disorder group, the schizoaffective disorder group displayed a more severe clinical picture at the beginning of the programme and a poorer functional outcome than the two other groups. Absence of clear boundaries and the several similarities within affective psychoses suggest they can usefully be grouped to define treatment strategies that are easily legible by clinicians.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available