Early intervention in psychiatry · 2013
Adolescent family perceptions in the At-Risk Mental State for psychosis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Welsh Patrick, Tiffin Paul A
Аннотация
AIM: There is a long-standing interest in the relationship between patients affected by psychosis and their families. Previous research also suggests that perceived family dysfunction is a factor commonly associated with psychological problems in adolescence. The current study examined the role of self-reported family perceptions in the context of adolescents with an At-Risk Mental State (ARMS) for psychosis.
METHODS: Family perceptions were obtained using the Family Perceptions Scale (FPS) and compared across three groups; an ARMS for psychosis group (n = 44), a first-episode affective/non-affective psychosis group (n = 26) and a control group (n = 140) drawn from a community population.
RESULTS: Scores on the FPS Expressed Emotion subscale were significantly higher in the psychosis and ARMS groups, compared to controls (P = 0.039 and P = 0.041, respectively). In contrast, participants in the ARMS group reported poorer perceived problem solving and lower levels of nurturing behaviour in their families compared to controls (P = 0.032 and P = 0.027). Overall, family perceptions were not related to symptom severity in both the ARMS and psychosis groups (except for manic symptomatology and Expressed Emotion).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight that ARMS patients are likely to report higher levels of perceived family dysfunction compared to a community sample of young people. However, the mechanisms by which family perceptions may contribute to the development of distressing psychotic symptoms remain unclear and require further study. Family work, with a focus upon improving perceived expressed emotion, nurturing behaviours and hostility may at this stage represent a feasible adjunct therapy for those with ARMS.
METHODS: Family perceptions were obtained using the Family Perceptions Scale (FPS) and compared across three groups; an ARMS for psychosis group (n = 44), a first-episode affective/non-affective psychosis group (n = 26) and a control group (n = 140) drawn from a community population.
RESULTS: Scores on the FPS Expressed Emotion subscale were significantly higher in the psychosis and ARMS groups, compared to controls (P = 0.039 and P = 0.041, respectively). In contrast, participants in the ARMS group reported poorer perceived problem solving and lower levels of nurturing behaviour in their families compared to controls (P = 0.032 and P = 0.027). Overall, family perceptions were not related to symptom severity in both the ARMS and psychosis groups (except for manic symptomatology and Expressed Emotion).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight that ARMS patients are likely to report higher levels of perceived family dysfunction compared to a community sample of young people. However, the mechanisms by which family perceptions may contribute to the development of distressing psychotic symptoms remain unclear and require further study. Family work, with a focus upon improving perceived expressed emotion, nurturing behaviours and hostility may at this stage represent a feasible adjunct therapy for those with ARMS.