Chinese label for people at risk for psychosis

Patients', carers' and clinicians' attitudes towards alternative terms to describe the at-risk for psychosis state

OBJECTIVE

Language used in psychiatry is important because it provides an understandable and accurate way of describing clinical and theoretical concepts. The use of labels in psychiatry has often been associated with stigma and reduced engagement with clinical services. This studys aims were to generate new terms for the 'at-risk mental state' (ARMS) concept and to investigate what young people, their caregivers and clinicians thought about them as well as terms commonly used in early intervention clinics. Another aim was to understand participants preference related to the best timing to introduce the at-risk concept and the extent and context of the information presented.

METHODS

New terms illustrating the at-risk concept have been generated by a youth reference group with lived experience of mental illness: 'pre-diagnosis stage' (PDS), potential of developing a mental illness (PDMI) and disposition for developing a mental illness (DDMI). A specifically designed questionnaire was administered to 46 patients with ARMS, 24 caregivers and 52 clinicians to obtain their feedback on newly proposed terms and on the terms already used in clinical practice and research.

RESULTS

The preferred terms were PDS, PDMI and ARMS. The least favoured terms were Ultra High Risk and Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome, which were thought to be associated with the most stigma. Most participants agreed that disclosure about diagnosis should be delivered early by the key clinician.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients generated terms such as PDS, PDMI, alongside ARMS should be considered to be used in clinical practice. They present with low stigma and are illustrative of young peoples difficulties.

Should we be concerned about stigma and discrimination in people at risk for psychosis? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have provided initial evidence that people at risk for psychosis (PR) suffer from stigma and discrimination related to their condition. However, no study has systematically reviewed stigma and discrimination associated with being at PR and the potential underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

This work aimed to systematically review all studies addressing stigma and discrimination in PR people in order to assess: (1) the occurrence of this phenomenon and its different components (public, internalized, perceived, and labeling-related), (2) whether stigma affects outcomes of the PR state, and (3) whether other factors modulate stigma among PR individuals.

RESULTS

The reviewed studies (n = 38) widely differ in their design, methodological quality, and populations under investigation, thus limiting direct comparison of findings. However, converging evidence suggests that the general public endorses stigmatizing attitudes towards PR individuals, and that this is more frequent in people with a low educational level or with no direct experience of the PR state. PR individuals experience more internalized stigma and perceive more discrimination than healthy subjects or patients with non-psychotic disorders. Further, PR labeling is equally associated with both positive (e.g. validation and relief) and negative effects (e.g. status loss and discrimination). Moreover, stigma increases the likelihood of poor outcome, transition to full-psychosis, disengagement from services, and family stigma among PR individuals. Finally, very limited evidence awaiting replication supports the efficacy of cognitive therapies in mitigating the negative effects of stigma.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence confirms previous concerns about stigma and its negative consequences for PR individuals, thus having important public health implications.