Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41163251›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of mental health nursing2025

Insight Paradox in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Concept Analysis.

Riho Mitsubayashi, Tomokazu Sugaya

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of mental health nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Insight Paradox in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Concept Analysis.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025
    Review
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

2 authors.

Riho MitsubayashiGraduate School of Comprehensive Human Science, Master's Program in Nursing Science, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4119-8292
Tomokazu SugayaInstitute of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3072-7724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the insight paradox in patients with schizophrenia has been widely discussed in the literature, there is currently no consensus on its definition. A clear conceptualization is essential to support research addressing this phenomenon. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the concept of the insight paradox in schizophrenia using the concept analysis method developed by Walker and Avant, with the goal of identifying its defining attributes, antecedents, and empirical referents. A total of 29 articles were included in the final review. The attributes of the insight paradox were classified into two categories: positive clinical outcomes, consisting of stabilisation of the condition, compliant treatment attitude, and improvement in functioning; and negative subjective outcomes, consisting of negative emotions, decline in quality of life, loss of goals and hopes, and decline in self-worth. The identified antecedents were the formation of insight, cognitive foundation, and negative attribution of illness. Consequences included loss of future prospects, passive treatment attitudes, social withdrawal, and worsening of illness. These findings suggest that insight in schizophrenia should not be regarded merely as a clinical label, but rather should be understood within the broader framework of self-awareness. Future psychological education interventions should account for both clinical and subjective outcomes in order to support more holistic recovery.

Indexed as

AwarenessSchizophreniaSchizophrenic PsychologyHumansQuality of LifeSelf Conceptconcept analysisinsightpersonal recoveryschizophreniaself‐stigma

Identifiers

PMID41163251
PMCPMC12572458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.