4.2 Article

Childhood negative experiences and subclinical psychosis in adolescence: a longitudinal general population study

期刊

EARLY INTERVENTION IN PSYCHIATRY
卷 1, 期 2, 页码 201-207

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-7893.2007.00027.x

关键词

psychosis; trauma; adolescence; general population

资金

  1. 2006 NARSAD Young Investigator Award
  2. Dutch Medical Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Accumulating evidence suggests that experiences of trauma and victimization during childhood are associated with an increased risk to develop clinical and subclinical psychosis in adulthood. A recent cross-sectional study showed a significant association between trauma and psychotic experiences in adolescents. The current study aimed to extend these findings by investigating the longitudinal effects of negative life experiences on the risk for subclinical psychotic symptoms 2 years later in an adolescent general community sample. Methods: Data were derived from the standard health screenings of the Youth Health Care Divisions of the Public Health Services, in the South of the Netherlands. A total of 1129 adolescents filled out a self-report questionnaire at age 13/14 years and 2 years later (15/16 years), assessing psychotic experiences, as well as experiences of being bullied, sexual trauma, and negative life events. Results: Logistic regression analyses revealed that sexual trauma increased the risk for psychotic symptoms 2 years later. Life events contributed to the risk for psychosis over time and psychosis in turn gave rise to new life events. No significant association with bullying was found after controlling for confounders. Conclusion: The results provide further evidence for an association between childhood environment and psychosis in the crucial developmental period of early adolescence. Early and later psychological stress, if severe, may impact on the risk for psychosis in adolescence through mechanisms of person-environment interaction and correlation.

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

4.2
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