受害经历时间表:在有或没有护理需要的精神病经历的个体中,情境化人际创伤和感知歧视。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
I Verdaasdonk, M A Charalambides, D Baumeister, M Jackson, P A Garety, C Morgan, T Ward, E Peters
{"title":"受害经历时间表:在有或没有护理需要的精神病经历的个体中,情境化人际创伤和感知歧视。","authors":"I Verdaasdonk, M A Charalambides, D Baumeister, M Jackson, P A Garety, C Morgan, T Ward, E Peters","doi":"10.1007/s00127-025-02917-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Victimisation is associated with psychotic experiences (PEs) across the psychosis continuum, yet contextual factors possibly influencing outcomes have been neglected. Building on the Unusual Experiences Enquiry study (UNIQUE) showing higher childhood trauma but lower discrimination in individuals with PEs without a need-for-care, compared to those with a need-for-care, this study utilized a novel instrument to examine victimisation-related contextual factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individuals from the UNIQUE study with persistent PEs with (clinical, n = 82) and without (non-clinical, n = 92) a need-for-care, and a control group without PEs (n = 83), completed the Victimisation Experiences Schedule (VES). This multidimensional instrument, comprising items from validated measures, assesses interpersonal traumas and discriminatory experiences, alongside contextual factors: impact, powerlessness, social support, age, duration, frequency, victim-perpetrator relationships, and reasons for discrimination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in lifetime interpersonal traumas between the clinical and non-clinical groups, with the latter reporting slightly more than controls. The clinical group experienced more lifetime perceived discrimination than the other groups. No differences emerged in impact and powerlessness at the time of victimisation; however, the clinical group reported lower positive social support and higher current impact and powerlessness for both types of victimisation. Discrimination occurred earlier and lasted longer in the clinical group than the other groups, often attributed to mental health and race/ethnicity, likely reflecting a higher proportion of racially minoritized individuals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest an interplay between risk and protective factors around victimisation that may shape outcomes, highlighting the importance of assessing contextual factors of victimisation using comprehensive tools like the VES.</p>","PeriodicalId":49510,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The victimisation experience schedule: contextualising interpersonal trauma and perceived discrimination in individuals with psychotic experiences with and without a need-for-care.\",\"authors\":\"I Verdaasdonk, M A Charalambides, D Baumeister, M Jackson, P A Garety, C Morgan, T Ward, E Peters\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00127-025-02917-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Victimisation is associated with psychotic experiences (PEs) across the psychosis continuum, yet contextual factors possibly influencing outcomes have been neglected. Building on the Unusual Experiences Enquiry study (UNIQUE) showing higher childhood trauma but lower discrimination in individuals with PEs without a need-for-care, compared to those with a need-for-care, this study utilized a novel instrument to examine victimisation-related contextual factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Individuals from the UNIQUE study with persistent PEs with (clinical, n = 82) and without (non-clinical, n = 92) a need-for-care, and a control group without PEs (n = 83), completed the Victimisation Experiences Schedule (VES). This multidimensional instrument, comprising items from validated measures, assesses interpersonal traumas and discriminatory experiences, alongside contextual factors: impact, powerlessness, social support, age, duration, frequency, victim-perpetrator relationships, and reasons for discrimination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no differences in lifetime interpersonal traumas between the clinical and non-clinical groups, with the latter reporting slightly more than controls. The clinical group experienced more lifetime perceived discrimination than the other groups. No differences emerged in impact and powerlessness at the time of victimisation; however, the clinical group reported lower positive social support and higher current impact and powerlessness for both types of victimisation. Discrimination occurred earlier and lasted longer in the clinical group than the other groups, often attributed to mental health and race/ethnicity, likely reflecting a higher proportion of racially minoritized individuals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest an interplay between risk and protective factors around victimisation that may shape outcomes, highlighting the importance of assessing contextual factors of victimisation using comprehensive tools like the VES.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49510,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-025-02917-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-025-02917-0","RegionNum":2,"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:受害与精神病连续体中的精神病经历(PEs)有关,但可能影响结果的环境因素被忽视了。在不寻常经历调查研究(UNIQUE)的基础上,与需要照顾的个体相比,不需要照顾的pe个体的童年创伤更高,但歧视更低,本研究利用一种新的工具来检查与受害相关的背景因素。方法:来自UNIQUE研究的持续性pe(临床,n = 82)和非(非临床,n = 92)有护理需求的个体,以及没有pe的对照组(n = 83),完成了受害经历表(VES)。这是一种多维工具,包括来自有效措施的项目,评估人际创伤和歧视经历,以及环境因素:影响、无力感、社会支持、年龄、持续时间、频率、受害者-加害者关系和歧视原因。结果:临床组和非临床组在终生人际创伤方面没有差异,后者的报告略高于对照组。临床组比其他组经历更多的终生感知歧视。受害时,在影响和无力感方面没有出现差异;然而,临床组报告说,两种类型的受害者都有较低的积极社会支持和较高的当前影响和无力感。与其他组相比,临床组的歧视发生得更早,持续时间更长,通常归因于心理健康和种族/民族,可能反映了种族少数群体的比例更高。结论:结果表明,受害的风险因素和保护因素之间的相互作用可能会影响结果,强调了使用VES等综合工具评估受害背景因素的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The victimisation experience schedule: contextualising interpersonal trauma and perceived discrimination in individuals with psychotic experiences with and without a need-for-care.

Purpose: Victimisation is associated with psychotic experiences (PEs) across the psychosis continuum, yet contextual factors possibly influencing outcomes have been neglected. Building on the Unusual Experiences Enquiry study (UNIQUE) showing higher childhood trauma but lower discrimination in individuals with PEs without a need-for-care, compared to those with a need-for-care, this study utilized a novel instrument to examine victimisation-related contextual factors.

Methods: Individuals from the UNIQUE study with persistent PEs with (clinical, n = 82) and without (non-clinical, n = 92) a need-for-care, and a control group without PEs (n = 83), completed the Victimisation Experiences Schedule (VES). This multidimensional instrument, comprising items from validated measures, assesses interpersonal traumas and discriminatory experiences, alongside contextual factors: impact, powerlessness, social support, age, duration, frequency, victim-perpetrator relationships, and reasons for discrimination.

Results: There were no differences in lifetime interpersonal traumas between the clinical and non-clinical groups, with the latter reporting slightly more than controls. The clinical group experienced more lifetime perceived discrimination than the other groups. No differences emerged in impact and powerlessness at the time of victimisation; however, the clinical group reported lower positive social support and higher current impact and powerlessness for both types of victimisation. Discrimination occurred earlier and lasted longer in the clinical group than the other groups, often attributed to mental health and race/ethnicity, likely reflecting a higher proportion of racially minoritized individuals.

Conclusion: The results suggest an interplay between risk and protective factors around victimisation that may shape outcomes, highlighting the importance of assessing contextual factors of victimisation using comprehensive tools like the VES.

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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.30%
发文量
184
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology is intended to provide a medium for the prompt publication of scientific contributions concerned with all aspects of the epidemiology of psychiatric disorders - social, biological and genetic. In addition, the journal has a particular focus on the effects of social conditions upon behaviour and the relationship between psychiatric disorders and the social environment. Contributions may be of a clinical nature provided they relate to social issues, or they may deal with specialised investigations in the fields of social psychology, sociology, anthropology, epidemiology, health service research, health economies or public mental health. We will publish papers on cross-cultural and trans-cultural themes. We do not publish case studies or small case series. While we will publish studies of reliability and validity of new instruments of interest to our readership, we will not publish articles reporting on the performance of established instruments in translation. Both original work and review articles may be submitted.
×
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