Valuing prodromal psychosis: What do we get and what is the price?
Valuing prodromal psychosis: What do we get and what is the price?
复制标题
DOI:
10.1016/j.schres.2010.03.013
复制
发表时间:
2010-07-01
影响因子:
4.5
通讯作者:
Lewis, Shon W.
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Drake, Richard J.;Lewis, Shon W.
There is now a proposal to include a “risk syndrome for first psychosis” in DSM V (Woods et al., 2009). To summarize the criteria: at least one of delusions, hallucinations or disorganized speech must be present, sufficiently attenuated to preserve reality testing and not to substantially interfere with thinking or behaviour. However, they must be distressing and be associated with decrements in social, cognitive or vocational function. The symptoms must have occurred at least weekly, on average, in the past month and worsened or begun in the past year. Other DSM V diagnoses must not better explain them and psychosis must never have occurred. It is only useful to distinguish a new syndrome on the basis of what is understood as a distinct pathological process; or a distinct prognosis; or at a point where identifying a category of problem guides the decision to treat or not. The syndrome proposed originated with Yung and McGorry's longitudinal treatment studies in Melbourne (eg McGorry et al., 2002; Yung et al., 2004). Their group defined three linked sets of criteria describing a group at “Ultra-High Risk” of developing frank psychosis who might benefit from preventative interventions. The first set described patients with a first-degree relative with psychotic disorder, suffering nonspecific symptoms and a specified decline in functioning. The second set defined attenuated positive psychotic symptoms sustained