ArticleSchizophrenia research2019
Impact of "psychosis risk" identification: Examining predictors of how youth view themselves.
Article in Schizophrenia research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- A shift or a substitution? On naming, exclusion, and co-production in longstanding eating disorders: matters arising from Lubieniecki et al. (2025).Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- The Use of Person-Centered Language in Scientific Research Articles Focused on Psychosis.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2025Article
- The experience of stigma and treatment-seeking among youth and family members receiving first episode psychosis services.Stigma and health · 2024Article
- The association between mental health stigma and face emotion recognition in individuals at risk for psychosis.Stigma and health · 2023Article
- Psychoeducation for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: A scoping review.Schizophrenia research · 2023Article
- Ethical Implications of the Use of Language Analysis Technologies for the Diagnosis and Prediction of Psychiatric Disorders.JMIR mental health · 2022Article
- Real-World Implementation of Precision Psychiatry: A Systematic Review of Barriers and Facilitators.Brain sciences · 2022Review
- A qualitative study on identity in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: " … Why does it have to be one thing?".Psychiatric rehabilitation journal · 2022Article
- Emotional and stigma-related experiences relative to being told one is at risk for psychosis.Schizophrenia research · 2021Article
- Reducing Stigma Among Youth at Risk for Psychosis: A Call to Action.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2021Article
- Preliminary support for using the Atypicality Scale from the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition, to screen for psychosis-spectrum disorders within a college counselling centre.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Advances in clinical staging, early intervention, and the prevention of psychosis.F1000Research · 2019Review
- Stigma of Treatment Stages for First-Episode Psychosis: A Conceptual Framework for Early Intervention Services.Harvard review of psychiatryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying young people as at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis affords opportunities for intervention to possibly prevent psychosis onset. Yet such CHR identification could plausibly increase stigma. We do not know whether these youth already perceive themselves to be at psychosis-risk (PR) or how their being told they are at PR might impact how they think about themselves.
methods148 CHR youth were asked about labels they had been given by others (labeling by others) or with which they personally identified (self-labeling). They were then asked which had the greatest impact on how they thought about themselves. We evaluated whether being told vs. thinking they were at PR had stronger effects.
findingsThe majority identified nonpsychotic disorders rather than PR labels as having the greatest impact on sense of self (67.6% vs. 27.7%). However, participants who identified themselves as at PR had an 8.8 (95% CI = 2.0-39.1) increase in the odds of the PR label having the greatest impact (p < 0.01). Additionally, having been told by others that they were at PR was associated with a 4.0 increase in odds (95% CI = 1.1-15.0) that the PR label had the most impact (p < 0.05).
interpretationNonpsychotic disorder labels appear to have a greater impact on CHR youth than psychosis-risk labels. However, thinking they are at PR, and, secondarily, being told they are at PR, appears to increase the relative impact of the PR label. Understanding self- and other-labeling may be important to how young people think of themselves, and may inform early intervention strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.