Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29982814›Full record

ArticleSchizophrenia bulletin2018

Psychotic Experiences and Related Distress: A Cross-national Comparison and Network Analysis Based on 7141 Participants From 13 Countries.

Caroline Wüsten, Björn Schlier, Edo S Jaya, Genetic Risk and Outcome of Psychosis (GROUP) Investigators, Eduardo Fonseca-Pedrero, Emmanuelle Peters, Hélène Verdoux, Todd S Woodward, Tim B Ziermans, Tania M Lincoln

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Schizophrenia bulletin, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Psychosis screening questionnaire: Exploring its factor structure among South African adults.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Caroline WüstenClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Björn SchlierClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Edo S JayaPsychosis Studies Research Group, Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.
Genetic Risk and Outcome of Psychosis (GROUP) Investigators
Eduardo Fonseca-PedreroDepartment of Educational Sciences, University of La Rioja, La Rioja, Spain.
Emmanuelle PetersDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hélène VerdouxUniv. Bordeaux, U1219 Bordeaux Population Health Research Center, Bordeaux, France.
Todd S WoodwardDepartment of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Tim B ZiermansDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Tania M LincolnClinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

Medical Research Council G1100568
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychotic experiences (PEs) are common in the general population but do not necessarily reflect a risk status if they occur in relative isolation or are not distressing. Emerging evidence suggests that PEs might be experienced as more benign for individuals from collectivistic low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC) compared with individualistic high-income countries (HIC). The aim of this study was to determine whether: (1) self-reported PEs are less distressing in community samples from LAMIC than from HIC; (2) the network of PEs is significantly less connected in a sample from LAMIC than from HIC. Adults from 8 HIC (n = 4669) and 5 LAMIC (n = 2472) were compared. The lifetime frequency of PEs and related distress were assessed with the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences. We analyzed the associations of PEs with distress and country type. The interconnection of PEs was visualized by a network analysis and tested for differences in global connection strengths. The average endorsement rates of PEs were significantly higher in LAMIC than in HIC (χ2 = 1772.87, P < .01, Φcramer = 0.50). There was a universal positive correlation between higher frequency of PEs and more distress, but the distress levels controlled for frequency were significantly higher in HIC (R2 = 0.11; b = 0.26; SE = 0.01; T = 17.68; P < .001). Moreover, the network of PEs was significantly less connected in LAMIC (S = 0.40, P < .05). The findings indicate that PEs are of less clinical relevance in LAMIC compared with HIC. The universal use of current high-risk criteria might thus not be adequate without consideration of associated distress and cultural values.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDeveloped CountriesDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychotic DisordersSchizophreniaStress, PsychologicalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29982814
PMCPMC6192474

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.