CanJPsychiatry 2014;59(10):518–522

In Review

Are the Effects of Duration of Untreated Psychosis Socially Mediated? Ross M G Norman, PhD, CPsych1 1

Professor, Departments of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Epidemiology & Biostatistics, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario. Correspondence: The University of Western Ontario, A2–643, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, ON N6A 5W9; [email protected].

Key Words: early intervention, duration of untreated psychosis, social support, first-episode psychosis Received and accepted June 2014,

Investigation of possible mechanisms by which longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) could influence treatment outcomes has focused primarily on evidence for neurotoxic effects. It is also possible that longer DUP has psychosocial effects, which could mediate its impact on outcomes. The evidence of relevance to such socially toxic effects is reviewed, with particular reference to the possible role of social support. There is no definite evidence for social support as a mediator of the influence of DUP, but further investigation of this issue is warranted. WWW

Les effets de la durée de la psychose non traitée sont-ils modifier socialement? Le recherche sur les mécanismes possibles par lesquels une durée prolongée de la psychose non traitée (DPNT) pourrait influencer les résultats du traitement a porté principalement sur les preuves d’effets neurotoxiques. Il est également possible que la DPNT prolongée ait des effets psychosociaux, qui pourraient modifier son impact sur les résultats. Les données probantes de la pertinence de tels effets socialement toxiques sont examinées, en se référant particulièrement au rôle éventuel du soutien social. Il n’y a pas d’évidence défintive montrant que le soutien social puisse être un médiateur de l’influence de la DPNT, mais cette question mérite d’autres recherches.

D

uring the past 2 decades, there has been much interest in the possible benefits of providing earlier intervention for psychotic disorders.1,2 A major factor in the enthusiasm for early intervention is the hypothesis that earlier intervention will lead to improved treatment outcomes as the result of reduced duration of untreated psychosis (DUP). Although there is still uncertainty about the significance of DUP as an influence on recovery, there appears to be a reasonably robust correlation between DUP and symptomatic and functional outcomes during the first several years of treatment.3,4 The explanation most often offered for any beneficial effects of reducing DUP is the postulate that untreated psychosis results in changes in the brain that are difficult to reverse and therefore treatment delay is somehow neurotoxic.5,6 This hypothesis has given rise to a substantial body of research on the relation between DUP and measure of brain structure, function, and (or) neurocognitive functioning.7–10 Evidence concerning possible neurotoxic effects of untreated psychosis is, however, inconclusive.11,12 There has been relative neglect of other potential mechanisms through which a longer period of untreated

518 W La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol 59, no 10, octobre 2014

psychosis could compromise recovery. These alternate mechanisms could include social psychological factors, which appear to have implications for recovery from psychosis. While acknowledging that there is no definitive evidence for social mediation of any relations between DUP and treatment outcomes, I would argue that further research examining such relations appears justified. Mediators are factors (B) that at least partially account for a relation between an antecedent factor (A) and a consequence or outcome (C). There are formal criteria for identifying possible mediators. These include that B should be related to A and C, and that the relation between A and C is eliminated or significantly reduced when both A and B are used in predicting C.13 Using this framework, is there any evidence suggesting that social psychological factors may act as a mediator between DUP and treatment outcome? I will focus my discussion on social support, a construct that is widely used when examining the effect of the social environment on health outcomes. In general, social support refers to the functions performed for a person by others, and include provision of emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance.14,15 www.LaRCP.ca

Are the Effects of Duration of Untreated Psychosis Socially Mediated?

Social Support and Treatment Outcome in Psychosis

Cross-sectional studies have shown relations between perceived social support and self-reported indices of recovery.16–18 In addition, social support is often cited as a very important contributor to recovery by people experiencing a first-episode psychosis (FEP).19–21 Longitudinal studies could provide stronger evidence that social support influences treatment outcome. Several prospective studies of patients with FEP have now shown that social support is related to symptomatic outcomes,22,23 functioning, quality of life, and affect.24–30

Social Support and Duration of Untreated Psychosis

There are 2 primary reasons for supposing that social support could be related to DUP. This first is evidence that members of a person’s social network, such as family, friends, and acquaintances, often play an important role in treatment seeking when psychosis occurs, suggesting that greater social support could bring about shorter DUP.31–38 The second is evidence that symptoms of psychosis and (or) associated stigma can have a disruptive effect on social relationships, that is, longer DUP could compromise social support.39–41 Studies of correlates of formally assessed DUP do provide evidence for an inverse relation with social support.22,42–50 Some of these studies have relied on measures of whether a person is living alone or with others at the time of illness onset,47,50,51 which may not fully capture social support while others have used indices more directly reflecting social support or overall functioning of a person’s social network.43–45,48 Norman et al52 used data on pathways to care in an effort to assess whether the relation between DUP and social support primarily reflects the role of family and friends in facilitating treatment. They reasoned that if social support was influencing DUP then the relation between the 2 should be explained by the length of time between the onset of psychosis and family or friends recognizing the need for treatment. There was no evidence for the latter delay explaining the relation between DUP and social support, and the relation was not accounted for by possible confounds, such as symptoms, sex, acuity of onset, or premorbid adjustment. These findings were interpreted as indicating that the inverse relation between social support and DUP is not entirely a result of members of a person’s social network facilitating treatment, and may reflect the effect of untreated psychosis on social relationships.

Is Social Support a Mediator?

There are several possible causal pathways by which social support could be related to both DUP and treatment outcomes. First, it should be acknowledged that both social support and DUP may be correlated with other variables, such as premorbid adjustment, social competence, or negative symptoms, which may be the primary influence(s) www.TheCJP.ca

Highlights •

Aspects of social support are correlated with both DUP and treatment outcomes for people with a first episode of a psychotic disorder.



There is justification for more investigation of the role of social support as a possible mediator of any relations between DUP and treatment outcome.



Social support is a complex construct and there needs to be more systematic investigation of the importance of its differing components in predicting treatment outcomes in first-episode psychosis.

on outcomes. Regarding this possibility, note that the relation of social support and treatment outcomes has generally been found to be independent of demographic characteristics and clinical presentation,19,22,25–28 although there is some evidence that the relation may be stronger for people with a diagnosis within the schizophrenia spectrum.25,26 Similarly, the relation between DUP and treatment outcomes is generally independent of potential confounds.3,4 Social support could influence DUP, with the latter being the primary determinant of subsequent treatment outcomes. Longer periods of untreated psychosis could reflect or bring about poor social support, with the latter being the primary influence on (or mediator of) treatment outcomes. It is also possible that social support and DUP are correlated factors that make independent contributions to treatment outcome. There have been few reports that simultaneously examine the role of DUP and social support in predicting treatment outcomes for patients with FEP. Alvarez-Jimenez et al19 assessed social support based on having both parents alive, compared with death or loss of contact with one or both parents, and found this index and DUP made independent contributions to predicting likelihood of repeat episodes of psychosis in patients with FEP. Using a more proximal measure, clinician ratings of quality of social relations at time of presentation for treatment,53 Norman et al22,27 found both social support and DUP made independent contributions to prediction of hospital admissions and occupational functioning during 3-year follow-up, but, by 5 years, DUP was not predicting occupational functioning but social support (particularly as assessed 1 year after initiation of treatment) was predicting it. These few relevant studies do not provide clear indications of whether any effects of DUP on outcomes are mediated by social support. Future research addressing this issue will need to take into consideration several factors related to the nature of social support.

The Nature of Social Support

Social support is a complex construct and there are many subtleties in the distinctions between and descriptions of the relevant processes.54–56 There are 3 main discriminations The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 59, No 10, October 2014 W 519

In Review

underlying the classification of social support: function, source, and perspective. The functions of social support are frequently divided into instrumental assistance, informational support, and emotional support.14,15,57 With reference to recovery from psychotic disorders, instrumental assistance could include tangible assistance, such as help with activities of daily living, help with finances, housing, return to school, and employment. Informational assistance could include providing factual information or advice that helps with appraisal of and coping with challenges, such as acceptance of diagnosis and adherence to treatment. Emotional support includes demonstrations of valuing, respecting, and caring for the person. Clearly, each of these functions could have separable effects on different aspects of treatment outcome. Most of the measures used in research cited earlier do not directly assess these separate functions; indeed, measures such as living with others, compared with alone, parental loss or contact with family, do not necessarily reflect the extent to which any of these functions are being served. Measures of social support used in research on psychotic disorders tend to focus on support from primary groups, such as family and friends.58 Such measures do not necessarily reflect resources available from secondary groups, such as coworkers, casual acquaintances, and peer support groups who can be helpful in supporting mental health.15,59 A distinction is often made between measures of social support that focus on specific instances of support received, and measures of an individual’s perceptions of the social support available.55,60,61 The latter is generally referred to as perceived support and it has been contended that perceived social support shows the most reliable relations to physical and mental health.61–63 The research on social support and treatment outcomes for schizophrenia or psychotic disorders has not provided much evidence related to the relative importance of varying aspects of social support. In a cross-sectional study, Norman et al17 found that a measure designed to reflect perceptions of being valued by family and acquaintances was more strongly related to self-perceived recovery than were measures of perceived informational or instrumental support. This finding appears consistent with the considerable body of research showing that expressed emotion (which includes indices of criticism and hostility) is directly related to likelihood of relapse and other aspects of treatment outcome,58 and more recent research implicating expressions of positive thoughts and feelings from others as being particularly important in predicting social adjustment and likelihood of relapse.64–66 Long periods of active psychosis will likely have impacts on support received from others. Perhaps changes in some domains will differ from trajectories in other areas. For instance, a person may experience increases in instrumental support but perceive reductions in positive regard from others and other aspects of emotional support. There is evidence that negative emotional climate in families is associated with 520 W La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol 59, no 10, octobre 2014

longer periods of untreated psychosis.67–69 However, there has been no examination of the role of emotional social support, specifically as a possible mediator of the effects of DUP, on treatment outcome. The suggestion that aspects of emotional support may be particularly important influences on treatment outcomes for people with psychotic disorders is also consistent with evidence that self-esteem is an important influence on onset and course of psychosis and recovery.70–74 Positive regard from others has repeatedly been found to be a major predictor of self-esteem and associated mood states in nonclinical populations,75,76 as well as people with psychotic disorders.77 Research on social support as a potential mediator of relation between DUP and treatment outcomes would need to not only carefully assess differing dimensions of social support but also consider likely changes in social support over time.28 Unlike DUP, social support is not a static predictor. The evolution of social support over time is likely to reflect ongoing reciprocal influences between differing domains of social support and recovery. Given that social support may well change during the recovery process, to the extent that any effects of DUP are being mediated by social support, we would expect its predictive power to vary over time.

Conclusion

Efforts to understand the mechanisms by which DUP sometimes predicts treatment outcomes for people with psychotic disorders may benefit from including an examination of social psychological factors, such as social support. Neural and social psychological mechanisms should not be seen as incompatible or competing approaches to understanding the impact of untreated psychosis,78,79 but more careful examination of social mediators seems justified.

Acknowledgements

Dr Norman has no conflict of interest to declare. The Canadian Psychiatric Association proudly supports the In Review series by providing an honorarium to the authors.

References

1. Jackson HJ, McGorry PD. The recognition and management of early psychosis: a preventive approach. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press; 2009. 2. McGorry PD, Edwards J, Mihalopoulos C, et al. EPPIC: an evolving system of early detection and optimal management. Schizophr Bull. 1996;22(2):305–326. 3. Marshall M, Lewis S, Lockwood A, et al. Association between duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in cohorts of firstepisode patients: a systematic review. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(9):975–983. 4. Perkins DO, Gu H, Boteva K, et al. Relationship between duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in first-episode schizophrenia: a critical review and meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(10):1785–1804. 5. Wyatt RJ. Neuroleptics and the natural course of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1991;17(2):325–351. www.LaRCP.ca

Are the Effects of Duration of Untreated Psychosis Socially Mediated? 6. Wyatt RJ, Apud JA, Potkin S. New directions in the prevention and treatment of schizophrenia: a biological perspective. Psychiatry. 1996;59(4):357–370. 7. Goldberg TE, Burdick KE, McCormack J, et al. Lack of an inverse relationship between duration of untreated psychosis and cognitive function in first episode schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2009;107(2–3):262–266. 8. Lappin JM, Morgan KD, Morgan C, et al. Duration of untreated psychosis and neuropsychological function in first episode psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2007;95(1–3):103–110. 9. Malla AK, Bodnar M, Joober R, et al. Duration of untreated psychosis is associated with orbital-frontal grey matter volume reductions in first episode psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2011;125(1):13–20. 10. Norman RM, Malla AK. Duration of untreated psychosis: a critical examination of the concept and its importance. Psychol Med. 2001;31(3):381–400. 11. McGlashan TH. Is active psychosis neurotoxic? Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(4):609–613. 12. Rund BR. Does active psychosis cause neurobiological pathology? A critical review of the neurotoxicity hypothesis. Psychol Med. 2014;44:1577–1590. 13. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173–1182. 14. House JS, Kahn RL. Measures and concepts of social support. In: Cohen S, Syme SL, editors. Social support and health. San Diego (CA): Academic Press; 1985. p 83–108. 15. Thoits PA. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J Health Soc Behav. 2011;52:145–161. 16. Lloyd C, King R, Moore L. Subjective and objective indicators of recovery in severe mental illness: a cross-sectional study. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2010;56(3):220–229. 17. Norman RM, Windell D, Lynch J, et al. Correlates of subjective recovery in an early intervention program for psychoses. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2013;7(3):278–284. 18. Roe D, Mashiach-Eizenberg M, Lysaker PH. The relation between objective and subjective domains of recovery among persons with schizophrenia-related disorders. Schizophr Res. 2011;131(1–3):133–138. 19. Alvarez-Jimenez M, Gleeson JF, Henry LP, et al. Prediction of a single psychotic episode: a 7.5-year, prospective study in firstepisode psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2011;125(2–3):236–246. 20. Eisenstadt P, Monteiro VB, Diniz MJ, et al. Experience of recovery from a first-episode psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2012;6(4):476–480. 21. Windell D, Norman RM. A qualitative analysis of influences on recovery following a first episode of psychosis. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2013;59(5):493–500. 22. Norman RM, Malla AK, Manchanda R, et al. Social support and three-year symptom and admission outcomes for first episode psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2005;80(2–3):227–234. 23. Tempier R, Balbuena L, Lepnurm M, et al. Perceived emotional support in remission: results from an 18-month follow-up of patients with early episode psychosis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2013;48(12):1897–1904. 24. Davis L, Kurzban S, Brekke J. Self-esteem as a mediator of the relationship between role functioning and symptoms for individuals with severe mental illness: a prospective analysis of Modified Labeling theory. Schizophr Res. 2012;137(1–3):185–189. 25. Erickson DH, Beiser M, Iacono WG, et al. The role of social relationships in the course of first-episode schizophrenia and affective psychosis. Am J Psychiatry. 1989;146(11):1456–1461. 26. Erickson DH, Beiser M, Iacono WG. Social support predicts 5-year outcome in first-episode schizophrenia. J Abnorm Psychol. 1998;107(4):681–685. 27. Norman RM, Malla AK, Manchanda R, et al. Does treatment delay predict occupational functioning in first-episode psychosis? Schizophr Res. 2007;91(1–3):259–262. 28. Norman RM, Windell D, Manchanda R, et al. Social support and functional outcomes in an early intervention program. Schizophr Res. 2012;140(1–3):37–40. 29. Ritsner MS, Arbitman M, Lisker A, et al. Ten-year quality of life outcomes among patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective www.TheCJP.ca

disorder II. Predictive value of psychosocial factors. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(6):1075–1084. 30. Tempier R, Balbuena L, Garety P, et al. Does assertive community outreach improve social support? Results from the Lambeth Study of early-episode psychosis. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63(3):216–222. 31. Addington J, Van Mastrigt S, Hutchinson J, et al. Pathways to care: help seeking behaviour in first episode psychosis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002;106(5):358–364. 32. Agarkar S. A case of prolonged duration of untreated psychosis: barriers to treatment and strategies to improve the outcome. Clin Schizophr Relat Psychoses. 2012;6(1):45–48. 33. de Haan L, Peters B, Dingemans P, et al. Attitudes of patients toward the first psychotic episode and the start of treatment. Schizophr Bull. 2002;28(3):431–442. 34. Johnstone EC, Crow TJ, Johnson AL, et al. The Northwick Park Study of first episodes of schizophrenia. I. Presentation of the illness and problems relating to admission. Br J Psychiatry. 1986;148:115–120. 35. Lincoln C, Harrigan S, McGorry PD. Understanding the topography of the early psychosis pathways. An opportunity to reduce delays in treatment. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1998;172(33):21–25. 36. Norman R, Malla A. Pathways to care and reducing treatment delay in early psychosis. In: Jackson HJ, McGorry PD, editors. The recognition and management of early psychosis: a preventive approach. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press; 2009. p 161–174. 37. Lihong Q, Shimodera S, Fujita H, et al. Duration of untreated psychosis in a rural/suburban region of Japan. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2012;6(3):239–246. 38. O’Callaghan E, Turner N, Renwick L, et al. First episode psychosis and the trail to secondary care: help-seeking and health-system delays. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2010;45(3):381–391. 39. Fawzi MH, Fawzi MM, Fouad AA. Parent abuse by adolescents with first-episode psychosis in Egypt. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53(6):730–735. 40. Macdonald E, Sauer K, Howie L, et al. What happens to social relationships in early psychosis? A phenomenological study of young people’s experiences. J Ment Health. 2005;14(2):129–143. 41. Tanskanen S, Morant N, Hinton M, et al. Service user and carer experiences of seeking help for a first episode of psychosis: a UK qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:157. 42. Drake RJ, Haley CJ, Akhtar S, et al. Causes and consequences of duration of untreated psychosis in schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;177:511–518. 43. Kalla O, Aaltonen J, Wahlstrom J, et al. Duration of untreated psychosis and its correlates in first-episode psychosis in Finland and Spain. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2002;106(4):265–275. 44. Larsen TK, Johannessen JO, Opjordsmoen S. First-episode schizophrenia with long duration of untreated psychosis. Pathways to care. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 1998;172(33):45–52. 45. Thorup A, Petersen L, Jeppesen P, et al. Social network among young adults with first-episode schizophrenia spectrum disorders: results from the Danish OPUS trial. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006;41(10):761–770. 46. Devylder JE, Gearing RE. Declining social support in adolescents prior to first episode psychosis: associations with negative and affective symptoms. Psychiatry Res. 2013;210(1):50–54. 47. Oliveira AM, Menezes PR, Busatto GF, et al. Family context and duration of untreated psychosis (DUP): results from the Sao Paulo Study. Schizophr Res. 2010;119(1–3):124–130. 48. Peralta V, Cuesta MJ, Martinez-Larrea A, et al. Duration of untreated psychotic illness: the role of premorbid social support networks. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2005;40(5):345–349. 49. Ruiz-Veguilla M, Barrigon ML, Diaz FJ, et al. The duration of untreated psychosis is associated with social support and temperament. Psychiatry Res. 2012;200(2–3):687–692. 50. Thomas SP, Nandhra HS. Early intervention in psychosis: a retrospective analysis of clinical and social factors influencing duration of untreated psychosis. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;11(5):212–214. 51. Barnes TR, Hutton SB, Chapman MJ, et al. West London firstepisode study of schizophrenia. Clinical correlates of duration of untreated psychosis. Br J Psychiatry. 2000;177:207–211. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 59, No 10, October 2014 W 521

In Review 52. Norman RMG, Malla AK, Manchanda R. Is untreated psychosis socially toxic? Early Interv Psychiatry. 2007;1:267–270. 53. Becker M, Diamond R, Sainfort F. A new patient focused index for measuring quality of life in persons with severe and persistent mental illness. Qual Life Res. 1993;2(4):239–251. 54. Berkman LF, Glass T. Social integration, social networks, social support and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, editors. Social epidemiology. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 2000. p 137–173. 55. Hobfoll SE. Social support: the movie. J Soc Pers Relat. 2009;26(1):93–101. 56. Vangelisti AL. Challenges in conceptualizing social support. J Soc Pers Relat. 2009;26(1):39–51. 57. Cohen S, Memelstein R, Kamarck T, et al. Measuring the functional components of social support. In: Sarason IG, Sarason BR, editors. Social support: theory, research and applications. Dordrecht (NL): Martinus Nijhoff; 1985. p 73–94. 58. Bebbington P, Kuipers L. The predictive utility of expressed emotion in schizophrenia: an aggregate analysis. Psychol Med. 1994;24(3):707–718. 59. Sarason IG, Sarason BR. Social support: mapping the construct. J Soc Pers Relat. 2009;26(1):113–120. 60. Haber MG, Cohen JL, Lucas T, et al. The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: a meta-analytic review. Am J Community Psychol. 2007;39(1–2):133–144. 61. Uchino BN. Understanding the links between social support and physical health: a life span perspective with emphasis on the separability of perceived and received support. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009;4:236–255. 62. Bolger N, Amarel D. Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: experimental evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;92(3):458–475. 63. Dunkel-Schetter C, Bennett TL. Differentiating the cognitive and behavioral aspects of social support. In: Sarason BR, Sarason IG, Pierce GR, editors. Social support: an interactional view. New York (NY): John Wiley & Sons; 1990. p 267–296. 64. Greenberg JS, Knudsen KJ, Aschbrenner KA. Prosocial family processes and the quality of life of persons with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv. 2006;57(12):1771–1777. 65. Ivanovic M, Vuletic Z, Bebbington P. Expressed emotion in the families of patients with schizophrenia and its influence on the course of illness. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1994;29(2):61–65.

522 W La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, vol 59, no 10, octobre 2014

66. Lee G, Barrowclough C, Lobban F. Positive affect in the family environment protects against relapse in first-episode psychosis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014;49(3):367–376. 67. Alvarez-Jimenez M, Gleeson JF, Cotton SM, et al. Differential predictors of critical comments and emotional over-involvement in first-episode psychosis. Psychol Med. 2010;40(1):63–72. 68. Meneghelli A, Alpi A, Pafumi N, et al. Expressed emotion in first-episode schizophrenia and in ultra high-risk patients: results from the Programma2000 (Milan, Italy). Psychiatry Res. 2011;189(3):331–338. 69. Patterson P, Birchwood M, Cochrane R. Expressed emotion as an adaptation to loss: prospective study in first-episode psychosis. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2005;48:s59–s64. 70. Bentall RP, Kinderman P, Kaney S. The self, attributional processes and abnormal beliefs: towards a model of persecutory delusions. Behav Res Ther. 1994;32(3):331–341. 71. Garety PA, Kuipers E, Fowler D, et al. A cognitive model of the positive symptoms of psychosis. Psychol Med. 2001;31(2):189–195. 72. Krabbendam L, van Os J. Affective processes in the onset and persistence of psychosis. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005;255(3):185–189. 73. Vracotas N, Iyer SN, Joober R, et al. The role of self-esteem for outcome in first-episode psychosis. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2012;58(1):41–46. 74. Warman DM, Lysaker PH, Luedtke B, et al. Self-esteem and delusion proneness. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2010;198(6):455–457. 75. Leary MR. Affiliation, acceptance and belonging: the pursuit of interpersonal connection. In: Fiske ST, Gilbert DT, Lindzey G, editors. Handbook of social psychology, vol 2. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley; 2010. p 844–897. 76. Leary MR, Downs DL. Interpersonal functions of the self-esteem motive: the self-esteem system as a sociometer. In: Kernis MH, editor. Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem. New York (NY): Plenum Press; 1995. p 123–144. 77. Norman RM, Windell D, Lynch J, et al. Perceived relational evaluation as a predictor of self-esteem and mood in people with a psychotic disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2012;57(5):309–316. 78. Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG, Sheridan JF, et al. Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and biological approaches. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(6):829–843. 79. Paradiso S, Rudrauf D. Struggle for life, struggle for love and recognition: the neglected self in social cognitive neuroscience. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012;14(1):65–75.

www.LaRCP.ca

Are the effects of duration of untreated psychosis socially mediated?

Investigation of possible mechanisms by which longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) could influence treatment outcomes has focused primarily on...
288KB Sizes 2 Downloads 6 Views