Gender differences in the psychopathology of emerging psychosis.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Alexandre González-Rodríguez, Erich Studerus, Andrea Spitz, Hilal Bugra, Jacqueline Aston, Stefan Borgwardt, Charlotte Rapp, Anita Riecher-Rossler
{"title":"Gender differences in the psychopathology of emerging psychosis.","authors":"Alexandre González-Rodríguez,&nbsp;Erich Studerus,&nbsp;Andrea Spitz,&nbsp;Hilal Bugra,&nbsp;Jacqueline Aston,&nbsp;Stefan Borgwardt,&nbsp;Charlotte Rapp,&nbsp;Anita Riecher-Rossler","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gender differences have often been found in psychopathological symptoms among chronic schizophrenia and first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients. However, many of these studies suffer from methodological problems and show inconsistent results. Furthermore, very few studies have investigated gender differences in individuals with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Psychopathological symptoms were assessed in 117 ARMS and 87 FEP patients by two observer-rated scales, namely, the expanded version of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and by one self-report scale, the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire (FCQ). Gender differences were investigated by applying Analyses of Variance using the BPRS, SANS and FCQ subscales as dependent variables, and group and sex as between-subject factors - in a second step by including age, antipsychotic, antidepressant and cannabis use as covariates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant gender × patient group interactions, suggesting that gender effects did not differ between patient groups. Women had higher scores in positive psychotic symptoms (BPRS Psychosis/ Thought Disturbance) while men had higher scores in negative symptoms (BPRS negative symptoms, SANS total score, as well as subscales Affective Flattening, Avolition-Apathy and Asociality-Anhedonia). However, the differences did not withstand correction for multiple testing. The results did not change when corrected for potential confounders.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There do not seem to be any gender differences in psychopathology, neither in ARMS nor in FEP patients, as regards self-reported or observerrated symptoms, when corrected for multiple testing and potential confounders.</p>","PeriodicalId":49288,"journal":{"name":"Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences","volume":"51 2","pages":"85-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Gender differences have often been found in psychopathological symptoms among chronic schizophrenia and first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients. However, many of these studies suffer from methodological problems and show inconsistent results. Furthermore, very few studies have investigated gender differences in individuals with an at-risk mental state (ARMS) for psychosis.

Methods: Psychopathological symptoms were assessed in 117 ARMS and 87 FEP patients by two observer-rated scales, namely, the expanded version of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and by one self-report scale, the Frankfurt Complaint Questionnaire (FCQ). Gender differences were investigated by applying Analyses of Variance using the BPRS, SANS and FCQ subscales as dependent variables, and group and sex as between-subject factors - in a second step by including age, antipsychotic, antidepressant and cannabis use as covariates.

Results: There were no significant gender × patient group interactions, suggesting that gender effects did not differ between patient groups. Women had higher scores in positive psychotic symptoms (BPRS Psychosis/ Thought Disturbance) while men had higher scores in negative symptoms (BPRS negative symptoms, SANS total score, as well as subscales Affective Flattening, Avolition-Apathy and Asociality-Anhedonia). However, the differences did not withstand correction for multiple testing. The results did not change when corrected for potential confounders.

Conclusions: There do not seem to be any gender differences in psychopathology, neither in ARMS nor in FEP patients, as regards self-reported or observerrated symptoms, when corrected for multiple testing and potential confounders.

新发精神病精神病理的性别差异。
背景:在慢性精神分裂症和首发精神病(FEP)患者的精神病理症状中经常发现性别差异。然而,这些研究中的许多都存在方法上的问题,并显示出不一致的结果。此外,很少有研究调查精神病高危精神状态(ARMS)个体的性别差异。方法:对117例ARMS和87例FEP患者进行精神病理症状评估,采用扩展版精神简要评定量表(BPRS)和阴性症状评定量表(SANS)以及法兰克福投诉问卷(FCQ)自评量表。性别差异通过方差分析进行调查,使用BPRS、SANS和FCQ量表作为因变量,并将群体和性别作为受试者之间的因素-在第二步中,将年龄、抗精神病药、抗抑郁药和大麻使用作为协变量。结果:性别与患者组间无显著交互作用,提示性别效应在患者组间无差异。女性在阳性精神病症状(BPRS精神病/思维障碍)中得分较高,而男性在阴性症状(BPRS阴性症状、SANS总分以及情感平坦、厌恶-冷漠和社交-快感缺乏亚量表)中得分较高。然而,这些差异经受不住多重测试的修正。校正潜在的混杂因素后,结果没有改变。结论:在对多重测试和潜在混杂因素进行校正后,无论是ARMS患者还是FEP患者,在自我报告或观察到的症状方面,精神病理似乎都没有任何性别差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: THE ISRAEL JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY publishes original articles dealing with the all bio-psycho-social aspects of psychiatry. While traditionally the journal has published manuscripts relating to mobility, relocation, acculturation, ethnicity, stress situations in war and peace, victimology and mental health in developing countries, papers addressing all aspects of the psychiatry including neuroscience, biological psychiatry, psychopharmacology, psychotherapy and ethics are welcome. The Editor also welcomes pertinent book reviews and correspondence. Preference is given to research reports of no more than 5,000 words not including abstract, text, references, tables and figures. There should be no more than 40 references and 4 tables or figures. Brief reports (1,500 words, 5 references) are considered if they have heuristic value. Books to be considered for review should be sent to the editorial office. Selected book reviews are invited by the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信