To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Research has consistently shown that language abilities represent a core dimension of psychosis; however, to date, very little is known about syntactic comprehension performance in the early stages of psychosis. This study aims to compare the linguistic abilities involved in syntactic comprehension in a large group of First Episode Psychosis (FEP) patients and healthy controls (HCs).
A multiple choice test of comprehension of syntax was administered to 218 FEP patients (166 non-affective FEP patients [FEP-NA] and 52 affective FEP patients [FEP-A]) and 106 HCs. All participants were asked to match a sentence they listen with one out of four vignettes on a pc screen. Only one vignette represents the stimulus target, while the others are grammatical or non-grammatical (visual) distractors. Both grammatical and non-grammatical errors and performance in different syntactic constructions were considered.
FEP committed greater number of errors in the majority of TCGB language domains compared to HCs. Moreover, FEP-NA patients committed significantly more non-grammatical (z = −3.2, p = 0.007), locative (z = −4.7, p < 0.001), passive-negative (z = −3.2, p = 0.02), and relative (z = −4.6, p < 0.001) errors compared to HCs as well as more passive-affirmative errors compared to both HCs (z = −4.3, p < 0.001) and FEP-A (z = 3.1, p = 0.04). Finally, we also found that both FEP-NA and FEP-A committed more grammatical (FEP-NA: z = −9.2, p < 0.001 and FEP-A: z = −4.4, p < 0.001), total (FEP-NA: z = −8.2, p < 0.001 and FEP-A: z = 3.9, p = 0.002), and active-negative (FEP-NA: z = −5.8, p < 0.001 and FEP-A: z = −3.5, p = 0.01) errors compared to HCs.
This study shows that the access to syntactic structures is already impaired in FEP patients, especially in those with FEP-NA, ultimately suggesting that language impairments represent a core and inner feature of psychosis even at early stages.
The GET UP multi-element psychosocial intervention proved to be superior to treatment as usual in improving outcomes in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP). However, to guide treatment decisions, information on which patients may benefit more from the intervention is warranted.
To identify patients' characteristics associated with (a) a better treatment response regardless of treatment type (non-specific predictors), and (b) a better response to the specific treatment provided (moderators).
Some demographic and clinical variables were selected a priori as potential predictors/moderators of outcomes at 9 months. Outcomes were analysed in mixed-effects random regression models. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01436331.)
Analyses were performed on 444 patients. Education, duration of untreated psychosis, premorbid adjustment and insight predicted outcomes regardless of treatment. Only age at first contact with the services proved to be a moderator of treatment outcome (patients aged ≥35 years had greater improvement in psychopathology), thus suggesting that the intervention is beneficial to a broad array of patients with FEP.
Except for patients aged over 35 years, no specific subgroups benefit more from the multi-element psychosocial intervention, suggesting that this intervention should be recommended to all those with FEP seeking treatment in mental health services.
Objective — To asses the capacity of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) to discriminate between normal subjects and clinical samples and between with different psychiatric diagnosis. Design — The present paper analyzes the studies published between 1979 and 1995, which have used the PBI in normal subjects and clinical samples and have reported the respective means and standard deviations obtained on the two PBI dimensions: affection and control. Multiple comparisons were carried out between the mean scores of affection and control of: 1) samples with the same psychiatric diagnosis (intragroup comparison); 2) samples with different psychiatric diagnoses (intergroup comparison); 3) normal subjects and clinical samples. Results — Of the 46 studies with normal and clinical subjects, 23 studies were selected for the analysis, reporting means and standard deviations and specifying the diagnostic criteria. Samples with the same psychiatric diagnosis had similar affection and control scores. With the exception of bipolar affective disorders and avoidant personality disorders, the prevalent parental style was for all diagnostic groups the affectionless control style. Within the affectionless control style, the PBI discriminated between panic attacks, borderline personality and drug addiction but not between schizophrenia, unipolar depression and anxiety disorder. The PBI discriminated also between normal subjects samples and samples with anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder, personality disorder and drug addiction respectively. Conclusion — The results confirm previous suggestions from single studies that the perceived parental style as measured by the PBI can be considered a good predictor for the presence of psychiatric disorders excluding panic attacks, avoidant personality disorders and unipolar affective disorders. Although the different diagnostic groups do not differ in their perceived parental style (affectionless control), significant differences between some diagnostic groups within this category suggest that the PBI might have some specificity as well.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.