服务使用者对精神病风险术语的看法:一项关于标签用语偏好和耻辱感的意大利研究。

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Tommaso Boldrini , Gabriele Lo Buglio , Arianna Schiano Lomoriello , Alice Barsanti , Elena Cordova , Francesca De Salve , Alessandro Gennaro , Paolo Girardi , Renan Göksal , Naoyuki Katagiri , Sung-Wan Kim , Suzie Lavoie , Vittorio Lingiardi , Lara Malvini , Patrick D. McGorry , Alessandro Miola , Barnaby Nelson , Osmano Oasi , Mauro Percudani , Claudio Placenti , Andrea Polari
{"title":"服务使用者对精神病风险术语的看法:一项关于标签用语偏好和耻辱感的意大利研究。","authors":"Tommaso Boldrini ,&nbsp;Gabriele Lo Buglio ,&nbsp;Arianna Schiano Lomoriello ,&nbsp;Alice Barsanti ,&nbsp;Elena Cordova ,&nbsp;Francesca De Salve ,&nbsp;Alessandro Gennaro ,&nbsp;Paolo Girardi ,&nbsp;Renan Göksal ,&nbsp;Naoyuki Katagiri ,&nbsp;Sung-Wan Kim ,&nbsp;Suzie Lavoie ,&nbsp;Vittorio Lingiardi ,&nbsp;Lara Malvini ,&nbsp;Patrick D. McGorry ,&nbsp;Alessandro Miola ,&nbsp;Barnaby Nelson ,&nbsp;Osmano Oasi ,&nbsp;Mauro Percudani ,&nbsp;Claudio Placenti ,&nbsp;Andrea Polari","doi":"10.1016/j.ajp.2024.104254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>The current range of labeling terms—at-risk mental state (ARMS), ultra-high risk for psychosis (UHR), and attenuated psychotic syndrome (APS)—used to refer to the psychosis-risk concept is varied, and their acceptability and potential stigma are not well understood. By involving Italian youth with lived experience of mental ill-health, we aimed to generate new labeling terms for psychosis-risk, and to evaluate literacy, attitudes, and preferences regarding these and the existing terms. Additionally, we investigated opinions of disclosure of the at-risk concept in clinical practice.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Through a dual-moderator focus group, novel diagnostic terms were coined for the at-risk concept: <em>psychosis proneness</em> (PP), <em>change of personal reality</em> (CPR), and <em>hints of subjectivity dysregulation</em> (HSD). A specifically designed questionnaire was then completed by 47 help-seeking youths, 60 relatives, and 61 clinicians to test newly generated and already established at-risk terms.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Literacy on already established terms was significantly lower among youth (mean= 42 %) and relatives (mean= 38 %). ARMS was the preferred and least stigmatizing term among young people and clinicians. UHR was considered the most stigmatizing label. Among newly generated terms, CPR was the least stigmatizing and most informative. Disclosure of at-risk terminology was generally preferred after establishing a trusting clinician-patient relationship.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Findings support ARMS as a useful and acceptable term in clinical practice with young people, while UHR is associated with the highest stigma. CPR is promising and should be tested in cross-cultural studies. In Italy, there is an urgent need for improving literacy on prevention in mental health.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8543,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of psychiatry","volume":"102 ","pages":"Article 104254"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Service users perspectives on psychosis-risk terminology: An Italian study on labeling terms preferences and stigma\",\"authors\":\"Tommaso Boldrini ,&nbsp;Gabriele Lo Buglio ,&nbsp;Arianna Schiano Lomoriello ,&nbsp;Alice Barsanti ,&nbsp;Elena Cordova ,&nbsp;Francesca De Salve ,&nbsp;Alessandro Gennaro ,&nbsp;Paolo Girardi ,&nbsp;Renan Göksal ,&nbsp;Naoyuki Katagiri ,&nbsp;Sung-Wan Kim ,&nbsp;Suzie Lavoie ,&nbsp;Vittorio Lingiardi ,&nbsp;Lara Malvini ,&nbsp;Patrick D. McGorry ,&nbsp;Alessandro Miola ,&nbsp;Barnaby Nelson ,&nbsp;Osmano Oasi ,&nbsp;Mauro Percudani ,&nbsp;Claudio Placenti ,&nbsp;Andrea Polari\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajp.2024.104254\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aims</h3><div>The current range of labeling terms—at-risk mental state (ARMS), ultra-high risk for psychosis (UHR), and attenuated psychotic syndrome (APS)—used to refer to the psychosis-risk concept is varied, and their acceptability and potential stigma are not well understood. By involving Italian youth with lived experience of mental ill-health, we aimed to generate new labeling terms for psychosis-risk, and to evaluate literacy, attitudes, and preferences regarding these and the existing terms. Additionally, we investigated opinions of disclosure of the at-risk concept in clinical practice.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Through a dual-moderator focus group, novel diagnostic terms were coined for the at-risk concept: <em>psychosis proneness</em> (PP), <em>change of personal reality</em> (CPR), and <em>hints of subjectivity dysregulation</em> (HSD). A specifically designed questionnaire was then completed by 47 help-seeking youths, 60 relatives, and 61 clinicians to test newly generated and already established at-risk terms.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Literacy on already established terms was significantly lower among youth (mean= 42 %) and relatives (mean= 38 %). ARMS was the preferred and least stigmatizing term among young people and clinicians. UHR was considered the most stigmatizing label. Among newly generated terms, CPR was the least stigmatizing and most informative. Disclosure of at-risk terminology was generally preferred after establishing a trusting clinician-patient relationship.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Findings support ARMS as a useful and acceptable term in clinical practice with young people, while UHR is associated with the highest stigma. CPR is promising and should be tested in cross-cultural studies. In Italy, there is an urgent need for improving literacy on prevention in mental health.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8543,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"102 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104254\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876201824003472\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876201824003472","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:目前用于指代精神病风险概念的标签术语--高危精神状态(ARMS)、超高精神病风险(UHR)和减弱精神病综合征(APS)--多种多样,人们对这些术语的可接受性和潜在的耻辱感也不甚了解。通过让有精神疾病生活经历的意大利青年参与进来,我们旨在为精神病风险创造新的标签术语,并评估对这些术语和现有术语的认知、态度和偏好。此外,我们还调查了在临床实践中披露风险概念的意见:方法:通过一个双主持人焦点小组,为高危概念创造了新的诊断术语:精神病倾向(PP)、个人现实改变(CPR)和主观性失调暗示(HSD)。然后,由 47 名求助青少年、60 名亲属和 61 名临床医生填写了一份专门设计的调查问卷,以检验新产生的和已确立的高危术语:结果:青少年(平均= 42%)和亲属(平均= 38%)对已有术语的了解程度明显较低。ARMS是年轻人和临床医生首选的、最无污名化的术语。UHR 被认为是最具污名化的标签。在新产生的术语中,CPR 的污名化程度最低,信息量最大。在建立了临床医生与患者之间的信任关系后,披露高危术语通常是首选:研究结果表明,在临床实践中,ARMS 是一个对年轻人有用且可接受的术语,而 UHR 则与最严重的污名化联系在一起。CPR前景广阔,应在跨文化研究中进行测试。在意大利,迫切需要提高心理健康预防知识的普及率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Service users perspectives on psychosis-risk terminology: An Italian study on labeling terms preferences and stigma

Aims

The current range of labeling terms—at-risk mental state (ARMS), ultra-high risk for psychosis (UHR), and attenuated psychotic syndrome (APS)—used to refer to the psychosis-risk concept is varied, and their acceptability and potential stigma are not well understood. By involving Italian youth with lived experience of mental ill-health, we aimed to generate new labeling terms for psychosis-risk, and to evaluate literacy, attitudes, and preferences regarding these and the existing terms. Additionally, we investigated opinions of disclosure of the at-risk concept in clinical practice.

Methods

Through a dual-moderator focus group, novel diagnostic terms were coined for the at-risk concept: psychosis proneness (PP), change of personal reality (CPR), and hints of subjectivity dysregulation (HSD). A specifically designed questionnaire was then completed by 47 help-seeking youths, 60 relatives, and 61 clinicians to test newly generated and already established at-risk terms.

Results

Literacy on already established terms was significantly lower among youth (mean= 42 %) and relatives (mean= 38 %). ARMS was the preferred and least stigmatizing term among young people and clinicians. UHR was considered the most stigmatizing label. Among newly generated terms, CPR was the least stigmatizing and most informative. Disclosure of at-risk terminology was generally preferred after establishing a trusting clinician-patient relationship.

Conclusions

Findings support ARMS as a useful and acceptable term in clinical practice with young people, while UHR is associated with the highest stigma. CPR is promising and should be tested in cross-cultural studies. In Italy, there is an urgent need for improving literacy on prevention in mental health.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian journal of psychiatry
Asian journal of psychiatry Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
297
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Psychiatry serves as a comprehensive resource for psychiatrists, mental health clinicians, neurologists, physicians, mental health students, and policymakers. Its goal is to facilitate the exchange of research findings and clinical practices between Asia and the global community. The journal focuses on psychiatric research relevant to Asia, covering preclinical, clinical, service system, and policy development topics. It also highlights the socio-cultural diversity of the region in relation to mental health.
×
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