4.4 Article

Formal thought disorder in people at ultra-high risk of psychosis

Journal

BJPSYCH OPEN
Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages 165-170

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjpo.bp.116.004408

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. UK Medical Research Council
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  3. King's College London
  4. Guy's and St Thomas' Charitable Foundation, South London
  5. Maudsley Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Formal thought disorder is a cardinal feature of psychosis. However, the extent to which formal thought disorder is evident in ultra-high-risk individuals and whether it is linked to the progression to psychosis remains unclear. Aims Examine the severity of formal thought disorder in ultra-high-risk participants and its association with future psychosis. Method The Thought and Language Index (TLI) was used to assess 24 ultra-high-risk participants, 16 people with first-episode psychosis and 13 healthy controls. Ultra-high-risk individuals were followed up for a mean duration of 7 years (s.d.= 1.5) to determine the relationship between formal thought disorder at baseline and transition to psychosis. Results TLI scores were significantly greater in the ultra-high-risk group compared with the healthy control group (effect size (ES)= 1.2), but lower than in people with first-episode psychosis (ES= 0.8). Total and negative TLI scores were higher in ultra-high-risk individuals who developed psychosis, but this was not significant. Combining negative TLI scores with attenuated psychotic symptoms and basic symptoms predicted transition to psychosis (P= 0.04; ES= 1.04). Conclusions TLI is beneficial in evaluating formal thought disorder in ultra-high-risk participants, and complements existing instruments for the evaluation of psychopathology in this group. Copyright and usage (C) The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2017.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available