Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorMoriyama, Taís Silveirapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorVan Os, Jimpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorGadelha, Arypt_BR
dc.contributor.authorPan, Pedro Mariopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorSalum Junior, Giovanni Abrahãopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorManfro, Gisele Guspt_BR
dc.contributor.authorMari, Jair de Jesuspt_BR
dc.contributor.authorMiguel, Eurípedes Constantinopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorRohde, Luis Augusto Paimpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorPolanczyk, Guilherme Vanonipt_BR
dc.contributor.authorMcGuire, Philippt_BR
dc.contributor.authorBressan, Rodrigo Affonsecapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorDrukker, Marjanpt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2020-02-22T04:19:37Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2019pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1664-0640pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/206178pt_BR
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Psychotic experiences in childhood (such as hearing voices or being suspicious) represent an important phenotype for early intervention. However, these experiences can be defined in several ways: self-reported psychotic experiences (SRPE) rely exclusively on the child’s report, clinically validated psychotic experiences (CRPE) are based on clinical assessment, and attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) represents a categorization to do with clinical relevance in relation to severity. Very few studies have investigated how these distinctions impact clinical and other domains. The present study aims to compare SRPE, CRPE, and APS among children and adolescents. Methods: This study is part of the Brazilian High-Risk Cohort Study for Psychiatric Disorders, in which 2,241 individuals aged 6–14 years provided self-ratings of 20 psychotic experiences using the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE). A trained psychologist conducted an interview to validate or reject reported experiences and to rate the presence of APS and affective flattening. In parallel, parents provided information about child mental health to an independent interviewer. We tested the association of mutually exclusive categories of non-validated SRPE (nSRPE), clinically validated PE below the threshold for APS (nCRPE), and APS (nSRPE = 33%, nCRPE = 11%, APS = 6%), with parents’ information about the child’s positive attributes and levels of psychopathology and psychologist assessment of blunted affect. Results: Most associations were qualitatively similar, and there was a dose–response in the strength of associations across categories, such that APS > nCRPE > nSRPE. Experiences in all three categories were associated with female sex. nSRPE were associated with overall levels of psychopathology, but to a lesser degree than nCRPE and APS. APS and nCRPE were associated with less positive attributes, with APS more so than nCRPE. Only APS was associated with affective flattening. Conclusions: In children and adolescents, SRPE, CRPE, and APS all index liability for psychopathology, but as clinician rated relevance increases, associations get stronger and become evident across more domains.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofFrontiers in psychiatry. Lausanne. vol. 10 (Oct. 2019), 782, 13 f.pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectTranstornos psicóticospt_BR
dc.subjectPsychotic experiencesen
dc.subjectSinais e sintomaspt_BR
dc.subjectAttenuated psychotic symptomsen
dc.subjectAdolescentsen
dc.subjectAdolescentept_BR
dc.subjectEsquizofreniapt_BR
dc.subjectSchizophreniaen
dc.subjectPsychiatric epidemiologyen
dc.titleDifferences between self-reported psychotic experiences, clinically relevant psychotic experiences, and attenuated psychotic symptoms in the general populationpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb001111293pt_BR
dc.type.originEstrangeiropt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples