Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34990988›Full record

ReviewClinical psychology review2022

A review of risky decision-making in psychosis-spectrum disorders.

John R Purcell, Emma N Herms, Jaime Morales, William P Hetrick, Krista M Wisner, Joshua W Brown

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical psychology review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Risky decision-making in major depressive disorder: A three-level meta-analysis.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP
    Article
  12. 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

6 authors.

John R PurcellIndiana University, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, USA; Indiana University, Program in Neuroscience, USA. Electronic address: johnpurc@indiana.edu.
Emma N HermsIndiana University, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, USA.
Jaime MoralesIndiana University, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, USA; Indiana University, Program in Neuroscience, USA.
William P HetrickIndiana University, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, USA; Indiana University, Program in Neuroscience, USA.
Krista M WisnerIndiana University, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, USA; Indiana University, Program in Neuroscience, USA.
Joshua W BrownIndiana University, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, USA; Indiana University, Program in Neuroscience, USA.

Funding

Quality Assurance and Quality Control Project Management: Improving Submissions and Study Conduct in the Human Subjects Research Prior Approval ProcessUL1TR002529 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI MOE, SHARON M, WIEHE, SARAH ELIZABETH · 2018 to 2022
$27.2M
Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001108 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DENNE, SCOTT C., SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2013 to 2017
$23.3M
Training in Clinical Translational Science: Maximizing the Public Health ImpactT32MH103213 · NIMH · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAM P HETRICK · 2015 to 2026
$3.4M
Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteTL1TR001107 · NCATS · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI DENNE, SCOTT C., SHEKHAR, ANANTHA · 2013 to 2017
$2.0M
Neural Circuity of Risk Aversion and Reward Processing in Psychotic DisordersF31MH122122 · NIMH · TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY · PI PURCELL, JOHN RANDALL · 2020 to 2020
$46k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR001107NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001108NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002529NIMH NIH HHS F31 MH122122NIMH NIH HHS T32 MH103213
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The investigation of risky decision-making has a prominent place in clinical science, with sundry behavioral tasks aimed at empirically quantifying the psychological construct of risk-taking. However, use of differing behavioral tasks has resulted in lack of agreement on risky decision-making within psychosis-spectrum disorders, as findings fail to converge upon the typical, binary conceptualization of increased risk-seeking or risk-aversion. The current review synthesizes the behavioral, risky decision-making literature to elucidate how specific task parameters may contribute to differences in task performance, and their associations with psychosis symptomatology and cognitive functioning. A paring of the literature suggests that: 1) Explicit risk-taking may be characterized by risk imperception, evidenced by less discrimination between choices of varying degrees of risk, potentially secondary to cognitive deficits. 2) Ambiguous risk-taking findings are inconclusive with few published studies. 3) Uncertain risk-taking findings, consistently interpreted as more risk-averse, have not parsed risk attitudes from confounding processes that may impact decision-making (e.g. risk imperception, reward processing, motivation). Thus, overgeneralized interpretations of task-specific risk-seeking/aversion should be curtailed, as they may fail to appropriately characterize decision-making phenomena. Future research in psychosis-spectrum disorders would benefit from empirically isolating contributions of specific processes during risky decision-making, including the newly hypothesized risk imperception.

Indexed as

Psychotic DisordersRisk-TakingCognitionDecision MakingHumansRewardAmbiguousDecision-makingPsychosisRewardRiskRisk-TakingSchizophreniaUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID34990988
PMCPMC8754677

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.