Search

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the momentary emotional experience of people with schizophrenia and those at risk for psychosis compared with that of healthy individuals. Key Points: Question: Does the momentary emotional experience of people with schizophrenia and of people at risk for psychosis differ from that of healthy people? Findings: This systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 111 emotion-induction studies and 6913 participants. People with schizophrenia and those at risk for psychosis experienced pleasant stimuli as less positive (small effect) and more negative (moderate effect) and neutral stimuli as more negative (moderate effect) than healthy controls; results were less conclusive for unpleasant stimuli. Meaning: In this study, there was a reliable pattern of aberrant emotional experience in schizophrenia, most notably for pleasant stimuli, that already manifested before disorder onset. Importance: Psychotic symptoms are associated with subjective reports of aberrant emotion, such as excessive fear or anhedonia, but whether these aberrations reflect aberrant emotional experience of normative stimuli is uncertain both for individuals with schizophrenia and those at risk for psychosis. Objective: To provide a meta-analysis of study samples of emotional experience in individuals with schizophrenia and those at risk for psychosis as assessed in laboratory-based emotion-induction studies. Data Sources: MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched for articles published from January 1986 and Google Scholar citations of a relevant earlier meta-analysis until August 2022. Reference lists were manually searched for additional studies. Study Selection: Included studies measured positive or negative emotional experience in response to standardized emotionally evocative stimuli and compared participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or participants at risk for psychosis with healthy controls. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. Data were extracted by 2 independent coders, and random-effects analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were 3 scales of emotional experience (unipolar positive emotion, unipolar negative emotion, bipolar valence), analyzed separately for pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant stimuli. A meta-analysis was conducted for differences between the 2 clinical groups combined and controls. Subgroup differences (schizophrenia vs at risk) and the influence of several other variables were tested in moderator analyses. Results: This systematic review and meta-analysis included data from 111 studies and 6913 participants (schizophrenia: 2848 [41.2%]; at risk: 877 [12.7%]; healthy controls: 3188 [46.1%]). Compared with controls, people with schizophrenia and those at risk for psychosis experienced pleasant stimuli as less positive (unipolar positive: standardized mean difference [SMD] Hedges g = −0.19; P =.001; bipolar valence: SMD Hedges g = −0.28; P <.001) and more negative (Hedges g = 0.52; P <.001), neutral stimuli as more negative (Hedges g = 0.55; P <.001), and unpleasant stimuli as both more positive (unipolar positive: SMD Hedges g = 0.23; P =.005; bipolar valence: Hedges g = 0.12; P =.01) and more negative (Hedges g = 0.22; P <.001). Moderator analyses indicated a less aberrant emotional experience for odors than for visual stimuli (unipolar negative, pleasant z score = −2.97; P =.003; unipolar negative, neutral z score = −2.70; P =.007), an association between higher negative symptoms and diminished positive emotion for pleasant stimuli in schizophrenia (z score = −2.98; P =.003), and that subgroup differences were limited to neutral stimuli. Conclusions and Relevance: Results suggest a pattern of aberrant emotional experience of normative stimuli in schizophrenia and that this already was observable before disorder onset. In particular, the aberrant experience of pleasant stimuli needs to be considered as an intervention target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Loneliness and paranoia are related, but the mechanisms that link them to each other remain unclear. Systematic reviews on loneliness propose a social–cognitive model in which loneliness leads to negative evaluations of other persons and a lack of interpersonal trust. However, the data discussed in these reviews are based on healthy individuals. Building on this model, the present study investigated 1) whether negative interpersonal schemata mediate the association between loneliness and paranoia and 2) whether a low level of perceived social support and less frequent social contact are related to loneliness. Using a cross-sectional design, sixty-five participants with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were recruited online and completed questionnaire-based measures of loneliness, paranoia, negative interpersonal schemata, perceived social support and frequency of social contact. Data were analyzed taking a path-analytic approach. The association between loneliness and paranoia was significantly and fully mediated by negative schemata of others. Moreover, a low level of perceived social support was significantly associated with loneliness, whereas self-reported frequency of social contact was not. The present results highlight the potential role of interpersonal negative schemata in the formation and maintenance of paranoia and elucidate the crucial role of loneliness in the way individuals construe themselves within a social environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We investigate reasons for persistent medication refusal in schizophrenia spectrum disorders and test whether factors that speak for a rational decision, such as negative experiences with medication or low symptom distress predict medication refusal, even after taking differences in insight into account. Method We included 45 participants with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, of which 20 had refused antipsychotic medication for at least three months and assessed reasons for taking or not taking medication, labeling condition as mental disorder (“insight"), experiences with the previous treatments, symptoms and symptom distress, positive and negative consequences and experiences of psychosis, causal beliefs, therapeutic relationships with previous clinicians and attitudes towards medication. Results Groups did not differ in symptom severity but medication refusers reported significantly less insight, less satisfaction with their most-recent psychiatrist and with previous medication, and more negative beliefs about harmful effects of medication. They also felt less informed about medication. After controlling for insight, the perceived helpfulness of the previous treating psychiatrist ( OR = 0.30, z = 5.58, p = 0.018) and of previous medication ( OR = 0.27, z = 6.87, p = 0.009) and feeling insufficiently informed about medication ( OR = 0.53, z = 3. 85, p = 0.050) significantly predicted medication discontinuation. Conclusions Building rapport with patients with a different view of the nature of their condition and encouraging informed decisions on medication are likely to improve medication adherence. However, the findings also suggest that refusing medication after a phase of initial adherence is also the consequence of negative experiences with medication and could result from weighing the pros against the cons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Randomized controlled trials have attested the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in reducing psychotic symptoms. Now, studies are needed to investigate its effectiveness in routine clinical practice settings. Method: Eighty patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who were seeking outpatient treatment were randomized to a specialized cognitive behavioral intervention for psychosis (CBTp; n = 40) or a wait list (n = 40). The CBTp group was assessed at baseline, posttreatment, and 1-year follow-up. The wait list group was assessed at baseline, after a 4-month waiting period, at posttreatment, and after I year. The primary outcome measure was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Results: The CBTp group showed significant improvement over the wait list group for the total PANSS score at posttreatment-postwaiting. CBTp was also superior to the wait list group in regard to the secondary outcomes positive symptoms, general psychopathology, depression, and functioning, but not in regard to negative symptoms. The number of dropouts during the treatment phases was low (11.3%). Participants perceived the treatment as helpful (98%) and considered themselves improved (92%). Significant pre- and posttreatment effect sizes varied between 0.77 for general psychopathology and 0.38 for delusional conviction. The positive effects of treatment could be maintained at 1-year follow-up, although the number of patients who had deteriorated was higher than at postassessment. Conclusions: Large proportions of patients in clinical practice settings benefit from CBTp. The efficacy of CBTp can be generalized to clinical practice despite the differences in patients, therapists, and deliverance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychological models of the consequences of ostracism (i.e. being socially excluded and ignored) and negative symptoms in schizophrenia suggest that repeatedly experiencing ostracism can lead to elevated levels of amotivation, anhedonia, and asociality (i.e. negative symptoms). We tested this assumption in a prospective study, following up a large multi-national community sample from Germany, Indonesia, and the United States (N = 962) every four months over one year. At each of the four assessment points (T0 – T3), participants rated their recent ostracism experiences and negative symptoms. Using cross-lagged panel analyses we found a) that negative symptoms and experiences of ostracism were significantly associated in each of the four assessment points, b) that ostracism predicted negative symptoms over time (T2 to T3), and c) that negative symptoms increased ostracism (T0 to T1). The results are in line with the social defeat model of negative symptoms and suggest a bi-directional longitudinal relationship between ostracism and negative symptoms. Moving forward, it will therefore be important to gain an understanding of potential moderators involved in the mechanism. • Negative symptoms and ostracism were significantly associated consistently in each assessment points. • Ostracism predicted negative symptoms (T2 to T3). • Negative symptoms predicted ostracism (T0 to T1). • The relationship between ostracism and negative symptoms may be bi-directional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]