4.4 Article

The course of negative symptoms over the first five years of treatment: Data from an early intervention program for psychosis

期刊

SCHIZOPHRENIA RESEARCH
卷 169, 期 1-3, 页码 412-417

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2015.09.010

关键词

Psychosis; Schizophrenia; Negative symptoms

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-57925]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cross-sectional studies suggest that negative symptoms are constituted by separable domains of reduced expressiveness and reduced motivation, but there is little data on the longitudinal course of these symptoms. We examined evidence for differences in the course and correlates of these two domains in a prospective study of patients presenting with a first episode of psychosis. Methods: Of 132 patients who were followed up for five years, it was possible to monitor reduced expressiveness and motivation on a weekly basis for 127. Information on treatment delay, premorbid adjustment, intellectual functioning, anxiety, depression and psychosocial functioning were also collected. Results: Over the five year follow-up, symptoms of reduced motivation occurred in 95.3% of patients and reduced expressiveness in 68.5%; and deficits in motivation were more likely to be unremitting (15.7%) than expressive deficits (5.5%). There were differences in the correlates of the proportion of time each patient experienced symptoms of each domain. Depression, weeks of full time occupation and weeks on a disability pension were associated with both domains. Anxiety was associated only with diminished motivation. Lower performance IQ; extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and dysrhythmic EEG were associated only with proportion of time showing reduced expressiveness. Conclusions: The prospective data support previous cross-sectional findings that, while these domains of negative symptoms are correlated, they do show differences in prevalence over time and in their correlates. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据