Impact of “psychosis risk” identification

Examining predictors of how youth view themselves

Larry Yang, Kristen A. Woodberry, Bruce G. Link, Cheryl M. Corcoran, Caitlin Bryant, Daniel I. Shapiro, Donna Downing, Ragy R. Girgis, Gary Brucato, Debbie Huang, Francesca M. Crump, Mary Verdi, William R. McFarlane, Larry J. Seidman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Identifying young people as at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis affords opportunities for intervention to possibly prevent psychosis onset. Yet such CHR identification could plausibly increase stigma. We do not know whether these youth already perceive themselves to be at psychosis-risk (PR) or how their being told they are at PR might impact how they think about themselves. Methods: 148 CHR youth were asked about labels they had been given by others (labeling by others) or with which they personally identified (self-labeling). They were then asked which had the greatest impact on how they thought about themselves. We evaluated whether being told vs. thinking they were at PR had stronger effects. Findings: The majority identified nonpsychotic disorders rather than PR labels as having the greatest impact on sense of self (67.6% vs. 27.7%). However, participants who identified themselves as at PR had an 8.8 (95% CI = 2.0-39.1) increase in the odds of the PR label having the greatest impact (p < 0.01). Additionally, having been told by others that they were at PR was associated with a 4.0 increase in odds (95% CI = 1.1-15.0) that the PR label had the most impact (p < 0.05). Interpretation: Nonpsychotic disorder labels appear to have a greater impact on CHR youth than psychosis-risk labels. However, thinking they are at PR, and, secondarily, being told they are at PR, appears to increase the relative impact of the PR label. Understanding self- and other-labeling may be important to how young people think of themselves, and may inform early intervention strategies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSchizophrenia Research
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Psychotic Disorders

Keywords

  • Clinical high risk state for psychosis
  • Early intervention
  • Identity
  • Psychosis risk
  • Stigma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Biological Psychiatry

Cite this

Impact of “psychosis risk” identification : Examining predictors of how youth view themselves. / Yang, Larry; Woodberry, Kristen A.; Link, Bruce G.; Corcoran, Cheryl M.; Bryant, Caitlin; Shapiro, Daniel I.; Downing, Donna; Girgis, Ragy R.; Brucato, Gary; Huang, Debbie; Crump, Francesca M.; Verdi, Mary; McFarlane, William R.; Seidman, Larry J.

In: Schizophrenia Research, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yang, L, Woodberry, KA, Link, BG, Corcoran, CM, Bryant, C, Shapiro, DI, Downing, D, Girgis, RR, Brucato, G, Huang, D, Crump, FM, Verdi, M, McFarlane, WR & Seidman, LJ 2019, 'Impact of “psychosis risk” identification: Examining predictors of how youth view themselves', Schizophrenia Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2019.01.037
Yang, Larry ; Woodberry, Kristen A. ; Link, Bruce G. ; Corcoran, Cheryl M. ; Bryant, Caitlin ; Shapiro, Daniel I. ; Downing, Donna ; Girgis, Ragy R. ; Brucato, Gary ; Huang, Debbie ; Crump, Francesca M. ; Verdi, Mary ; McFarlane, William R. ; Seidman, Larry J. / Impact of “psychosis risk” identification : Examining predictors of how youth view themselves. In: Schizophrenia Research. 2019.
@article{7adddb98cdd44c7ea85613175f4e4f19,
title = "Impact of “psychosis risk” identification: Examining predictors of how youth view themselves",
abstract = "Background: Identifying young people as at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis affords opportunities for intervention to possibly prevent psychosis onset. Yet such CHR identification could plausibly increase stigma. We do not know whether these youth already perceive themselves to be at psychosis-risk (PR) or how their being told they are at PR might impact how they think about themselves. Methods: 148 CHR youth were asked about labels they had been given by others (labeling by others) or with which they personally identified (self-labeling). They were then asked which had the greatest impact on how they thought about themselves. We evaluated whether being told vs. thinking they were at PR had stronger effects. Findings: The majority identified nonpsychotic disorders rather than PR labels as having the greatest impact on sense of self (67.6{\%} vs. 27.7{\%}). However, participants who identified themselves as at PR had an 8.8 (95{\%} CI = 2.0-39.1) increase in the odds of the PR label having the greatest impact (p < 0.01). Additionally, having been told by others that they were at PR was associated with a 4.0 increase in odds (95{\%} CI = 1.1-15.0) that the PR label had the most impact (p < 0.05). Interpretation: Nonpsychotic disorder labels appear to have a greater impact on CHR youth than psychosis-risk labels. However, thinking they are at PR, and, secondarily, being told they are at PR, appears to increase the relative impact of the PR label. Understanding self- and other-labeling may be important to how young people think of themselves, and may inform early intervention strategies.",
keywords = "Clinical high risk state for psychosis, Early intervention, Identity, Psychosis risk, Stigma",
author = "Larry Yang and Woodberry, {Kristen A.} and Link, {Bruce G.} and Corcoran, {Cheryl M.} and Caitlin Bryant and Shapiro, {Daniel I.} and Donna Downing and Girgis, {Ragy R.} and Gary Brucato and Debbie Huang and Crump, {Francesca M.} and Mary Verdi and McFarlane, {William R.} and Seidman, {Larry J.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.schres.2019.01.037",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Schizophrenia Research",
issn = "0920-9964",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of “psychosis risk” identification

T2 - Examining predictors of how youth view themselves

AU - Yang, Larry

AU - Woodberry, Kristen A.

AU - Link, Bruce G.

AU - Corcoran, Cheryl M.

AU - Bryant, Caitlin

AU - Shapiro, Daniel I.

AU - Downing, Donna

AU - Girgis, Ragy R.

AU - Brucato, Gary

AU - Huang, Debbie

AU - Crump, Francesca M.

AU - Verdi, Mary

AU - McFarlane, William R.

AU - Seidman, Larry J.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Identifying young people as at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis affords opportunities for intervention to possibly prevent psychosis onset. Yet such CHR identification could plausibly increase stigma. We do not know whether these youth already perceive themselves to be at psychosis-risk (PR) or how their being told they are at PR might impact how they think about themselves. Methods: 148 CHR youth were asked about labels they had been given by others (labeling by others) or with which they personally identified (self-labeling). They were then asked which had the greatest impact on how they thought about themselves. We evaluated whether being told vs. thinking they were at PR had stronger effects. Findings: The majority identified nonpsychotic disorders rather than PR labels as having the greatest impact on sense of self (67.6% vs. 27.7%). However, participants who identified themselves as at PR had an 8.8 (95% CI = 2.0-39.1) increase in the odds of the PR label having the greatest impact (p < 0.01). Additionally, having been told by others that they were at PR was associated with a 4.0 increase in odds (95% CI = 1.1-15.0) that the PR label had the most impact (p < 0.05). Interpretation: Nonpsychotic disorder labels appear to have a greater impact on CHR youth than psychosis-risk labels. However, thinking they are at PR, and, secondarily, being told they are at PR, appears to increase the relative impact of the PR label. Understanding self- and other-labeling may be important to how young people think of themselves, and may inform early intervention strategies.

AB - Background: Identifying young people as at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis affords opportunities for intervention to possibly prevent psychosis onset. Yet such CHR identification could plausibly increase stigma. We do not know whether these youth already perceive themselves to be at psychosis-risk (PR) or how their being told they are at PR might impact how they think about themselves. Methods: 148 CHR youth were asked about labels they had been given by others (labeling by others) or with which they personally identified (self-labeling). They were then asked which had the greatest impact on how they thought about themselves. We evaluated whether being told vs. thinking they were at PR had stronger effects. Findings: The majority identified nonpsychotic disorders rather than PR labels as having the greatest impact on sense of self (67.6% vs. 27.7%). However, participants who identified themselves as at PR had an 8.8 (95% CI = 2.0-39.1) increase in the odds of the PR label having the greatest impact (p < 0.01). Additionally, having been told by others that they were at PR was associated with a 4.0 increase in odds (95% CI = 1.1-15.0) that the PR label had the most impact (p < 0.05). Interpretation: Nonpsychotic disorder labels appear to have a greater impact on CHR youth than psychosis-risk labels. However, thinking they are at PR, and, secondarily, being told they are at PR, appears to increase the relative impact of the PR label. Understanding self- and other-labeling may be important to how young people think of themselves, and may inform early intervention strategies.

KW - Clinical high risk state for psychosis

KW - Early intervention

KW - Identity

KW - Psychosis risk

KW - Stigma

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061669580&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061669580&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.schres.2019.01.037

DO - 10.1016/j.schres.2019.01.037

M3 - Article

JO - Schizophrenia Research

JF - Schizophrenia Research

SN - 0920-9964

ER -