Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been shown to predict psychotic symptomology. However, few studies have examined the relative contribution of PTSD compared to broader post-traumatic sequelae in maintaining psychosis. Complex PTSD (cPTSD), operationalized using ICD-11 criteria, includes core PTSD (intrusions, avoidance, hyperarousal) as well as additional “disturbances of self-organisation” (DSO; emotional dysregulation, interpersonal difficulties, negative self-concept) symptoms, more likely to be associated with complex trauma histories. It was hypothesized that DSOs would be associated with positive psychotic symptoms (paranoia, voices, and visions) in daily life, over and above core PTSD symptoms.

This study (N = 153) employed a baseline subsample of the Study of Trauma And Recovery (STAR), a clinical sample of participants with comorbid post-traumatic stress and psychosis symptoms. Core PTSD, DSO and psychosis symptoms were assessed up to 10 times per day at quasi-random intervals over six consecutive days using Experience Sampling Methodology.

DSOs within the preceding 90 min predicted paranoia, voices, and visions at subsequent moments. These relationships persisted when controlling for core PTSD symptoms within this timeframe, which were themselves significant. The associations between DSOs and paranoia but not voices or visions, were significantly stronger than those between psychosis and core PTSD symptoms.

Consistent with an affective pathway to psychosis, the findings suggest that DSOs may be more important than core PTSD symptoms in maintaining psychotic experiences in daily life among people with comorbid psychosis and cPTSD, and indicate the potential importance of addressing broad post-traumatic sequelae in trauma-focused psychosis interventions.

Biomedical research from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is poorly represented in Western European and North American psychiatric journals.

To test the feasibility of trialling a capacity-building intervention to improve LMIC papers' representation in biomedical journals.

We designed an enhanced peer-review intervention delivered to LMIC corresponding/first authors of papers rejected by the British Journal of Psychiatry. We conducted a feasibility study, inviting consenting authors to be randomised to intervention versus none, measuring recruitment and retention rates, outcome completion and author/reviewer-rated acceptability.

Of the 26/121 consenting to participate, 12 were randomised to the intervention and 14 to the control arms. Outcome completion was 100% but qualitative feedback from authors/reviewers was mixed, with attrition from 5/12 (42%) of intervention reviewers.

Low interest among eligible authors and variable participation of expert reviewers suggested low feasibility of a full trial and a need for intervention redesign.

A.P., P.T. and M.Y. are British Journal of Psychiatry editorial board members. During this study P.T. was British Journal of Psychiatry Editor, A.P. was a trainee editor and A.H. was an editorial assistant.