Search

BACKGROUND: Psychotic experiences are reported by 5-10% of young people, although only a minority persist and develop into psychotic disorders. It is unclear what characteristics differentiate those with transient psychotic experiences from those with persistent psychotic experiences that are more likely to be of clinical relevance. AIMS: To investigate how longitudinal profiles of psychotic experiences, created from assessments at three different time points, are influenced by early life and co-occurring factors. METHOD: Using data from 8045 individuals from a birth cohort study, longitudinal profiles of psychotic experiences based on semi-structured interviews conducted at 12, 18 and 24 years were defined. Environmental, cognitive, psychopathological and genetic determinants of these profiles were investigated, along with concurrent changes in psychopathology and cognition. RESULTS: Following multiple imputations, the distribution of longitudinal profiles of psychotic experiences was none (65.7%), transient (24.1%), low-frequency persistent (8.4%) and high-frequency persistent (1.7%). Individuals with high-frequency persistent psychotic experiences were more likely to report traumatic experiences, other psychopathology, a more externalised locus of control, reduced emotional stability and conscientious personality traits in childhood, compared with those with transient psychotic experiences. These characteristics also differed between those who had any psychotic experiences and those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that the same risk factors are associated with incidence as with persistence of psychotic experiences. Thus, it might be that the severity of exposure, rather than the presence of specific disease-modifying factors, is most likely to determine whether psychotic experiences are transient or persist, and potentially develop into a clinical disorder over time.

BackgroundPsychotic experiences are reported by 5–10% of young people, although only a minority persist and develop into psychotic disorders. It is unclear what characteristics differentiate those with transient psychotic experiences from those with persistent psychotic experiences that are more likely to be of clinical relevance.AimsTo investigate how longitudinal profiles of psychotic experiences, created from assessments at three different time points, are influenced by early life and co-occurring factors.MethodUsing data from 8045 individuals from a birth cohort study, longitudinal profiles of psychotic experiences based on semi-structured interviews conducted at 12, 18 and 24 years were defined. Environmental, cognitive, psychopathological and genetic determinants of these profiles were investigated, along with concurrent changes in psychopathology and cognition.ResultsFollowing multiple imputations, the distribution of longitudinal profiles of psychotic experiences was none (65.7%), transient (24.1%), low-frequency persistent (8.4%) and high-frequency persistent (1.7%). Individuals with high-frequency persistent psychotic experiences were more likely to report traumatic experiences, other psychopathology, a more externalised locus of control, reduced emotional stability and conscientious personality traits in childhood, compared with those with transient psychotic experiences. These characteristics also differed between those who had any psychotic experiences and those who did not.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that the same risk factors are associated with incidence as with persistence of psychotic experiences. Thus, it might be that the severity of exposure, rather than the presence of specific disease-modifying factors, is most likely to determine whether psychotic experiences are transient or persist, and potentially develop into a clinical disorder over time.

This is a public deliverable of the EU funded (H2020) project SafePASS. The deliverable number is D2.3. Executive Summary: This deliverable’s main objective is twofold. On one hand, the deliverable’s focus is to consolidate a set of user requirements to facilitate the SafePASS system and entities design process, as well as the definition of the respective system specifications by describing the methodology used. The second goal is to define the appropriate personas to be used in the design process by describing the methodology used, as well as the respective scenarios of use that will further facilitate the system design and reveal the full potential of SafePASS. In order to create the consolidated list, the methodology used for the elicitation of user requirements is described, as well as the sub-groups of requirements that were derived from the Grant Agreement, the analysis of the best practices, gaps and needs, the mission and operational requirements and the stakeholder workshops and surveys. Moreover, ten (10) different Personas are identified and presented analytically, along with their role, status and main characteristics that may affect the scenarios of use and the overall evacuation process. In parallel, six (6) scenarios of use are described, based on the outcomes of the stakeholder workshops and the identified gaps of the state-of-the-art analysis, while their characteristics as the time of the day, the sea state, the location of the vessel and the type of incident are defined. Finally, the ten (10) defined personas are mapped to the six (6) scenarios of use, so as to assess their interconnections with the SafePASS system under varying situations, and the relevant requirements that derive from the special characteristics of both the personas and the scenario conditions, as well as the relevant SafePASS components, are facilitated.