ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2026
Describing Psychotic Experiences Through Online Psychosis Screens: A Content Analysis.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPsychotic experiences are commonly reported in population-based surveys, yet brief self-report screening instruments often yield high false-positive rates by capturing normative, culturally sanctioned, or other non-psychotic phenomena. Large surveys and administrative datasets increasingly include free-text responses that could contextualize these endorsements; however, qualitative data are under-analyzed due to resource constraints.
methodsUsing data from a US adult online survey, respondents who endorsed at least one item on the abbreviated World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WHO CIDI) psychosis screen were asked whether they could describe their experiences in an open-ended format. Using reflexive thematic analysis, three coders developed codes that were grouped into categories, and ultimately classified responses as probably psychotic, probably not psychotic, or unclear.
resultsContent analysis identified 13 thematic categories, including hallucinations, paranoia, emotional distress, interpersonal conflict, spiritual or paranormal beliefs, sleep-related experiences, and unintelligible responses. Nearly half of the responses were classified as unlikely to reflect psychotic experiences, while approximately 9% were deemed probably psychotic and 41% remained unclear due to insufficient context. Many responses reflected affective distress, stress-related interpretations, grief, or ambiguous experiences rather than clear psychotic phenomena. Descriptions capturing distress, functional impact, and insight were clinically informative but were inconsistently reported.
conclusionsBrief qualitative descriptions accompanying psychosis screening items provide valuable context that can clarify whether psychotic experiences reflect clinically meaningful psychotic phenomena or normative experiences. Integrating qualitative free-response fields may improve the interpretability and precision of psychosis screening, inform early detection efforts, and reduce the risk of over-pathologization.
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.