Schizophrenia research · 2026
Resilience factors and their role in clinical high-risk for psychosis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Do Lan P, Isvoranu A M, Kleim B, Heekeren K, Wulf Rössler, Theodoridou A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Recent approaches in psychosis research have emphasized the importance of the combined analysis of risk and resilience factors. A resilience-integrated approach offers a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms underlying symptom associations and progression in individuals at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis. Network analysis allows the examination of relationships among mental health conditions together with both risk and resilience factors. To our knowledge, this is the first study that investigated associations between resilience, risk factors, and psychosis-risk using network analysis.
METHODS: This secondary analysis of data from the ZInEP study (Zurich Early Recognition Program) examined 116 individuals at CHR for psychosis aged 18-35 years. We investigated the relationships between two candidate resilience factors (self-efficacy and self-esteem), daily hassles as a candidate risk factor, functioning level, and psychosis risk symptoms using network analysis.
RESULTS: Self-esteem and self-efficacy were negatively associated with general symptoms, negative symptoms, and daily hassles. Resilience factors and daily hassles were not associated with positive and disorganized symptoms, nor with functioning level. Centrality analyses further revealed that self-esteem had stronger node strength and bridge strength than self-efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the utility of a resilience-oriented approach in psychosis risk. Self-esteem and self-efficacy may play a crucial role in negative and general symptoms. Resilience factors may enrich our theoretical understanding of psychosis risk and help pave the way for resilience-based interventions.
METHODS: This secondary analysis of data from the ZInEP study (Zurich Early Recognition Program) examined 116 individuals at CHR for psychosis aged 18-35 years. We investigated the relationships between two candidate resilience factors (self-efficacy and self-esteem), daily hassles as a candidate risk factor, functioning level, and psychosis risk symptoms using network analysis.
RESULTS: Self-esteem and self-efficacy were negatively associated with general symptoms, negative symptoms, and daily hassles. Resilience factors and daily hassles were not associated with positive and disorganized symptoms, nor with functioning level. Centrality analyses further revealed that self-esteem had stronger node strength and bridge strength than self-efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the utility of a resilience-oriented approach in psychosis risk. Self-esteem and self-efficacy may play a crucial role in negative and general symptoms. Resilience factors may enrich our theoretical understanding of psychosis risk and help pave the way for resilience-based interventions.