Why do patients with psychosis listen to and believe derogatory and threatening voices? 21 reasons given by patients

The Role of Verbal Auditory Hallucinations in Influencing and Retrospectively Predicting Physical Harm Prevalence in Early Psychosis

Background

Research has established a relationship between psychosis and physical harm in the early course of psychosis. However, little is known about the relationship between specific psychosis symptoms, such as hearing voices, and physical harm.

Objective

This study aimed to determine the prevalence and typology of physical harm related to hearing voices, as well as what aspects of the voice-hearing experience retrospectively predicted incidents of harm within an Early Intervention in Psychosis Service (EIPS).

Methods

We conducted a quality improvement project in a single EIPS. We reviewed case notes of patients and extracted information on the cognitive-phenomenological features of the voices patients heard, as well as any incidents of physical harm that were causally linked to these voices.

Results

It was found that 32.2% of EI patients had an actual incident of physical harm in their case notes that was causally linked to hearing voices. The most common type of physical harm was neglect. In terms of cognitive phenomenological binary correlations that retrospectively predicted physical harm in the case notes, patients were 20 and 7 times more likely to have harmed themselves if they heard self-harm commands (i.e., directions to harm themselves physically) and perceived the voice as omnipotent, respectively. Patients were 6 times more likely to have harmed someone else if they heard violent commands.

Conclusion

Verbal auditory hallucinations commonly influence physical harm in the early course of psychosis. Hearing commands and/or believing the voice to be omnipotent are strong retrospective-correlative predictors that may aid in the assessment and therapeutic intervention.

Hallucinations and Delusions as Low-Quality Attributions: Influencing Factors and Proposal for Their Analysis

Hallucinations and delusions, in keeping with the distress accompanying them, are major features in the diagnosis of psychosis in international classifications. In spite of their human and clinical importance, the concepts are unclear. The distinction between hallucinations and delusions in terms of perception-thought is not precise enough, causing problems in analyzing the patient's words. Nor are the differentiations or variations within each precise enough. Continuing the long clinical tradition discussing the distinction between hallucinations and delusions while assuming their similarities, this study poses a concept integrating the two phenomena as attributions people make about themselves and their settings. Then the elements of any attribution can be used as guides for structuring significant literature on both, and reduce analytical ambiguity. Such attributions make more sense within the structure of two-way relationships with factors in a person's own framework and setting. This structure is described with its variables and relationships as a guide to assessment, follow-up, and intervention. Two checklists are provided for orientation.

The challenges and opportunities of social connection when hearing derogatory and threatening voices: A thematic analysis with patients experiencing psychosis

OBJECTIVES

Relationships with other people are important determinants of the course of psychosis, yet social isolation is common. This study sought to learn about the patient experience of being around other people when hearing derogatory and threatening voices (DTVs).

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study.

METHODS

Fifteen participants with experience of hearing DTVs in the context of non-affective psychosis were recruited from NHS services. Data were obtained by semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: (1) reasons why interacting with people is difficult when hearing DTVs; (2) the relationship between social connection and DTVs; and (3) factors which enable voice hearers to connect with others. A further ten sub-themes are outlined as reasons why hearing DTVs led to lower social connection, including difficulties during conversations (e.g., the concentration required is hard), negative expectations of interactions (e.g., fearing negative judgement from others), and difficulties sharing experiences of voices (e.g., people will be hurt or upset if I tell them about the voices). Isolation was a common response to hearing DTVs but also a time of vulnerability for hearing voices. Managing the challenges of interacting with people led to some improvements in DTVs.

CONCLUSIONS

There are understandable reasons why hearing DTVs leads to lower social connection. Yet isolating oneself can also be a time of vulnerability for DTVs. Social connection might be one vehicle for disengaging from and disputing derogatory and threatening voice content. The effect on voice hearing of social recovery interventions warrants further investigation.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Participants shared 10 reasons why being around people is challenging when hearing derogatory and threatening voices. These typically affected both daily social experiences and contact with clinicians. Common initial responses to hearing DTVs were to reduce contact with people, experience difficulties connecting during conversations and to avoid sharing the experience of voice hearing. However, social isolation was a time of vulnerability to DTVs, and hence, increasing social connection might be a target for interventions. A range of factors enabled voice hearers to manage social situations, for example: the fostering of trust, self-acceptance, learning when it is better to stay at home, and developing a narrative to explain voice hearing to others. Addressing the barriers to connecting with others might have an important role in personal recovery from voice hearing.