Considerations for providing feedback to patients and families regarding clinical high-risk for psychosis status

Positive Reframing of Psychosis Risk Is Seen as More Beneficial and Less Harmful Than Negative Framing by Clinicians: An Experimental Videotaped Simulated Feedback Study

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Recent studies show that, despite providing some relief, feedback about being at risk for psychosis often triggers negative emotional reactions. Inspired by Tversky and Kahneman's (1981) work on the framing effect and medical framings that favors positive framing like "life-threatening" over "high-risk for death," this study tested the hypothesis that positive reframing of psychosis risk (PR) could alleviate these concerns. To establish the justifiability and feasibility of testing this hypothesis with patients and their families, the study first sought to test whether mental health professionals (MHPs) view positive framing as superior to present state-of-the-art approaches.

STUDY DESIGN

The study used an experimental design utilizing a simulated feedback session, recorded with professional actors, featuring a clinician, an adolescent, and his mother. One hundred forty-eight MHPs were randomly assigned to view either negatively or positively framed feedback and were asked about its induced impact on the adolescent and mother.

STUDY RESULTS

The study results supported our main hypothesis, indicating significant benefits of positive framing over negative in areas like empathy, stress reduction, stigma, help-seeking, and hope. Contrary to our second hypothesis, familiarity with PR did not affect these results.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that MHPs view positive reframing of PR as more beneficial and less harmful than present negative framing approaches. This sets the stage for subsequent phases that will assess the perceptions and preferences of individuals at risk and their families. The discussion highlights possible misconceptions of positive framing, such as labeling, positive psychology, and de-medicalization.

Screening for Psychotic Experiences and Psychotic Disorders in General Mental Health Treatment Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The absence of systematic psychosis screening within general mental health services contributes to substantial treatment delays and poor long-term outcomes for individuals with psychotic symptoms. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate rates of subclinical psychotic symptoms for psychotic experiences (PE), clinical high-risk for psychosis syndrome (CHR-P), and psychotic disorders that were identified via studies screening treatment-seeking individuals. These rates can inform implementation recommendations for routine psychosis screening in general mental health settings.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to identify empirical studies with information on PE, CHR-P, or psychotic disorder prevalence identified by screening inpatients and outpatients (age < 65 years) receiving general mental health care. PE was identified using threshold scores on validated self-reported questionnaires, and CHR-P and psychotic disorder were identified using gold-standard structured interview assessments. A meta-analysis of each outcome was conducted using the restricted maximum likelihood estimator method to assess effect sizes in a random effects model.

RESULTS

The analyses included 41 independent samples (k = 32 outpatient, k = 2 inpatient, k = 7 combined settings) with a total of 25,751 patients (58% female, mean age: 24.1 years). PE prevalence was 44.3% (95% CI: 35.8-52.8%; 28 samples, n = 21,957); CHR-P prevalence was 26.4% (95% CI: 20.0-32.7%; 28 samples, n = 14,395); and psychotic disorder prevalence was 6.6% (95% CI: 3.3-9.8%; 32 samples, n = 20,371). Rates did not differ by sex, age, or setting type.

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence of psychotic symptoms in general mental health treatment settings underscores the need for early-detection psychosis screening. These base rates can be used to plan training and allocation of resources required to conduct psychosis assessments and build capacity for delivering interventions for CHR-P and early psychosis in non-specialty mental health treatment settings.

Co-production of a state-funded centralized psychosis and psychosis risk screening, assessment, and referral service

Learning Health Systems (LHSs) strive to continuously integrate innovations and evidence-based practices in healthcare settings, thereby enhancing programmatic and patient outcomes. Duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) is a variable worthy of empirical attention, as the construct has been identified as a leading predictor of psychotic spectrum disorder prognosis and, despite the proliferation of early intervention for psychosis (EIP) teams across the U.S., remains longer than the recommended maximum established by the World Health Organization. Pathways to care are causally implicated as a DUP reduction rate-limiting factor. This paper illustrates a balanced care model, wherein resource-intensive community and clinical services are centralized to support a more efficient, standardized, and direct pathway to EIP care; identification of psychosis and psychotic risk states is made by highly-trained diagnosticians; and measurement-based care across the Learning Health System (LHS) is supported by a central assessment team. The Central Assessment of Psychosis Service (CAPS) streamlines core front-end EIP functions across the LHS, thereby alleviating the burden on EIP teams while enhancing access, equity, efficiency, and quality of the initial psychodiagnostic assessment. CAPS represents an innovative application of the balanced care model that preserves the core functions of the EIP team while task sharing or task shifting resource-intensive activities to an academic medical center partner. We review the five core functions of a centralized referral, screening, and assessment service. Given the potential for centralization to reduce DUP and enhance equity and access across the LHS, this paper will include concrete recommendations for policymakers considering centralizing core functions.

Parsing stigma's relationship with the psychosocial functioning of youth identified as at clinical high risk for psychosis: evaluating whether symptom stigma or labelling stigma is stronger

BACKGROUND

The clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-p) syndrome enables early identification of individuals at risk of schizophrenia and related disorders. We differentiate between the stigma associated with the at-risk identification itself ('labelling-related' stigma) versus stigma attributed to experiencing mental health symptoms ('symptom-related' stigma) and examine their relationships with key psychosocial variables.

AIMS

We compare labelling- and symptom-related stigma in rates of endorsement and associations with self-esteem, social support loss and quality of life.

METHOD

We assessed stigma domains of shame-related emotions, secrecy and experienced discrimination for both types of stigma. Individuals at CHR-p were recruited across three sites (N = 150); primary analyses included those who endorsed awareness of psychosis risk (n = 113). Paired-sample t-tests examined differences in labelling- versus symptom-related stigma; regressions examined associations with psychosocial variables, controlling for covariates, including CHR-p symptoms.

RESULTS

Respondents reported greater symptom-related shame, but more labelling-related secrecy. Of the nine significant associations between stigma and psychosocial variables, eight were attributable to symptom-related stigma, even after adjusting for CHR-p symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Stigma attributed to symptoms had a stronger negative association with psychosocial variables than did labelling-related stigma among individuals recently identified as CHR-p. That secrecy related to the CHR-p designation was greater than its symptom-related counterpart suggests that labelling-related stigma may still be problematic for some CHR-p participants. To optimise this pivotal early intervention effort, interventions should address the holistic 'stigmatising experience' of having symptoms, namely any harmful reactions received as well as participants' socially influenced concerns about what their experiences mean, in addition to the symptoms themselves.

Screening for psychotic experiences and psychotic disorders in general psychiatric settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The absence of systematic screening for psychosis within general psychiatric services contribute to substantial treatment delays and poor long-term outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate rates of psychotic experiences, clinical high-risk for psychosis syndrome (CHR-P), and psychotic disorders identified by screening treatment-seeking individuals to inform implementation recommendations for routine psychosis screening in general psychiatric settings.

Methods

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to identify empirical studies that contained information on the point prevalence of psychotic experiences, CHR-P, or psychotic disorders identified by screening inpatient and outpatient samples aged 12-64 receiving general psychiatric care. Psychotic experiences were identified by meeting threshold scores on validated self-reported questionnaires, and psychotic disorders and CHR-P by gold-standard structured interview assessments. A meta-analysis of each outcome was conducted using the Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimator method of estimating effect sizes in a random effects model.

Results

41 independent samples (k=36 outpatient) involving n=25,751 patients (58% female, mean age: 24.1 years) were included. Among a general psychiatric population, prevalence of psychotic experiences was 44.3% (95% CI: 35.8-52.8%; 28 samples, n=21,957); CHR-P was 26.4% (95% CI: 20.0-32.7%; 28 samples, n=14,395); and psychotic disorders was 6.6% (95% CI: 3.3-9.8%; 32 samples, n=20,371).

Conclusions

High rates of psychotic spectrum illness in general psychiatric settings underscore need for secondary prevention with psychosis screening. These base rates can be used to plan training and resources required to conduct assessments for early detection, as well as build capacity in interventions for CHR-P and early psychosis in non-specialty mental health settings.

Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States

Background

Since its inception, research in the clinical high-risk (CHR) phase of psychosis has included identifying and exploring the impact of relevant socio-demographic factors. Employing a narrative review approach and highlighting work from the United States, sociocultural and contextual factors potentially affecting the screening, assessment, and service utilization of youth at CHR were reviewed from the current literature.

Results

Existing literature suggests that contextual factors impact the predictive performance of widely used psychosis-risk screening tools and may introduce systemic bias and challenges to differential diagnosis in clinical assessment. Factors reviewed include racialized identity, discrimination, neighborhood context, trauma, immigration status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and age. Furthermore, racialized identity and traumatic experiences appear related to symptom severity and service utilization among this population.

Conclusions

Collectively, a growing body of research from the United States and beyond suggests that considering context in psychosis-risk assessment can provide a more accurate appraisal of the nature of risk for psychosis, render more accurate results improving the field's prediction of conversion to psychosis, and enhance our understanding of psychosis-risk trajectories. More work is needed in the U.S. and across the globe to uncover how structural racism and systemic biases impact screening, assessment, treatment, and clinical and functional outcomes for those at CHR.

Skills program for awareness, connectedness, and empowerment: A conceptual framework of a skills group for individuals with a psychosis-risk syndrome

Intervention strategies for those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia can be effective in reducing symptoms and improving quality of life. While strides have been made in developing prevention and intervention strategies earlier on in the disease progression, among those at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis, challenges with heterogeneity can limit symptom and diagnosis specific treatment. Here, we discuss a newly developed therapy skills group called the Skills Program for Awareness, Connectedness, and Empowerment (SPACE) that integrates different types of behavioral skills - standard and radically open dialectical behavioral therapy as well as cognitive behavioral therapy - for CHR youth between the ages of 13-18 years. With the diathesis-stress framework serving as a foundation, the intervention is divided into three stages. These stages target specific signs and symptoms contributing to the progression of CHR symptoms. Stage 1 targets stress (with the goal of developing awareness and reducing distress), stage 2 targets self-disturbances (with a goal of increasing self-connectedness), and stage 3 targets social connectedness (with a goal of improving social domains of functioning). The focus of this article is to introduce the theoretical framework underlying the pilot skills group and discuss ongoing progress.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT05398120; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05398120.

Psychoeducation for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: A scoping review

Psychoeducation is recommended in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia and has been shown to improve satisfaction with mental health service and treatment adherence, reduce relapse and hospital readmission rates, and enhance functioning and quality of life. Youth at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) may also benefit from receiving psychoeducation as part of their treatment. The goal of this study was to conduct a scoping review to map out the existing literature on psychoeducation for CHR individuals, including content, utilization, and benefits, in order to identify areas for future research and clinical care. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection) to identify literature through 02/25/2022 that provided data or significant commentary about the provision of psychoeducation to CHR individuals. After screening titles and abstracts, four co-authors assessed full-text articles for eligibility. Thirty-three studies were included in the review. Psychoeducation is recommended in the treatment of CHR individuals, is a preferred treatment option among CHR individuals, and many CHR programs report offering psychoeducation. However, details about the psychoeducational content and method of delivery are notably absent from recommendations and reports on the provision of CHR psychoeducation in real-world settings. We identified two brief and structured CHR psychoeducation interventions and one longer-term psychoeducational multifamily group model for CHR that show feasibility and promise, though they have not yet undergone randomized trials to evaluate effectiveness of the psychoeducation. We also identified several comprehensive CHR interventions that included an explicit psychoeducation module, though the unique role of the psychoeducational component is unknown. Despite being recommended as a critical component of treatment for CHR individuals and preferred by CHR individuals, the ways in which psychoeducation are being delivered to CHR individuals in real-world practice is still largely ambiguous. Rigorous evaluations of psychoeducation treatment models are needed, as well as investment from clinical programs to facilitate the implementation and dissemination of standardized psychoeducation for CHR individuals.