4.7 Article

Temporal dynamics of suspiciousness and hallucinations in clinical high risk and first episode psychosis

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 290, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113039

关键词

Positive psychotic symptoms; Early stage psychosis; Experience sampling methodology

资金

  1. ERC [309767]
  2. German Research Foundation (DFG) [KL 970/7-1]
  3. 'Op De Pedalen' Fund
  4. FWO (Flemish Science Foundation) Odysseus grant [G0F8416N]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [309767] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of the current study is to elucidate the temporal dynamics of suspiciousness and hallucinations as they occur in daily life in the early stages of psychosis. Their prevalence and co-occurrence, as well as their temporal relation to affect and delusions, were compared between patients with a first psychotic episode (FEP) and individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHRp). The Experience Sampling Method was used to investigate suspiciousness and hallucinatory experiences, delusions, and affect at semi-random moments throughout six days in 33 CHRp and 34 FEP. Overall, 91% of CHRp and 59% of FEP reported suspiciousness, and 24% and 39% reported hallucinations, respectively. Hallucinations almost always co-occurred with suspiciousness, whereas suspiciousness was often present without hallucinations. Suspicious episodes in CHRp occurred with marked increases in delusional intensity, while hallucinatory experiences were mostly absent. In FEP, a decrease of positive affect preceded suspicious episodes, while an increase of negative affect preceded hallucinatory episodes. Our results indicated the presence of a delusional mood (atmosphere) in CHRp as an experience in itself, without co-occurring or following hallucinations, thus refuting the anomalous experience hypothesis of psychosis. The co-occurrence of hallucinations, on the other hand, indicates a more severe stage of symptomatology.

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

4.7
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