Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31236631›Full record

SynthesisSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2019

Perceived discrimination and psychosis: a systematic review of the literature.

Josie Pearce, Sonya Rafiq, Jane Simpson, Filippo Varese

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Josie PearceDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Sonya RafiqDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4431-156X
Jane SimpsonDivision of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5071-4077
Filippo VareseDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. filippo.varese@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7244-598X
Lancaster University · GBGreater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeHigher rates of psychosis have been reported in minority groups. Since individuals belonging to such groups are vulnerable to the experiences of discrimination, and in line with models proposing that social and life adversity may play a causal role in development and maintenance of psychotic experiences, it has been proposed that perceived discrimination may represent an important determinant of psychotic experiences. This paper reviews the literature examining the relationship between perceived discrimination and psychosis, examining whether discrimination is associated with an increased risk of psychosis, the severity of psychotic symptoms and whether there is an association with specific psychotic symptoms.

methodsA systematic database search of PsycINFO, Embase and PubMed was conducted to identify quantitative cross-sectional and prospective studies that examined the association between discrimination and psychosis.

resultsTwenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, four of which used prospective designs and twenty used cross-sectional designs. The main findings indicated that discrimination may be associated with an increased risk of psychosis (too few studies to determine whether discrimination is associated with severity). Some studies found associations between discrimination and positive psychotic experiences and/or specific psychotic experiences such as paranoia. A small number of studies found that greater exposure to discrimination was associated with a greater likelihood of reporting psychotic experiences, tentatively indicating a dose-response relationship.

conclusionsThis review indicates that discrimination plays an important role in the experience of psychosis; however, future research is required to clarify the nature of this relationship. Avenues for further research and clinical implications are proposed.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesHumansMinority GroupsParanoid DisordersPerceptionProspective StudiesPsychotic DisordersSocial DiscriminationMinorityPerceived discriminationPsychosisTrauma

Identifiers

PMID31236631
OpenAlexW2945222127

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.