Cited by 21Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryHallucinations in medical conditions

Which psychotic experiences are associated with a need for clinical care?

Brett, C.M.C., Peters, E.R., McGuire, P.K.·2015·European Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: The aims of this study were to identify (1) the factor structure of anomalous experiences across the psychosis continuum; (2) qualitative and quantitative differences in psychotic experiences (PEs) between “non need-for-care” and two clinical groups: psychosis patients and individuals at ultra high risk (UHR) of psychosis. We aimed to distinguish which types of experiences would be related to malign (need-for-care and/or help-seeking) versus benign outcomes. Methods: Component scores obtained from a Principal Components Analysis of PEs from lifetime scores on the Appraisals of Anomalous Experience Inventory (Brett et al., 2007) were compared across 96 participants: patients diagnosed with a psychotic disorder ( n = 37), help-seeking UHR people ( n = 21), and non-clinical individuals presenting with enduring PEs ( n = 38). Results: A five-component structure provided the best solution, comprising dissociative-type experiences, subjective cognitive deficits, and three separate components relating to “positive” symptoms. All groups reported “positive” experiences, such as ideas of reference and hallucinations, with the non-clinical group displaying more PEs in the Paranormal/Hallucinatory component than both clinical groups. “Cognitive/Attentional anomalies” was the only component where the clinical groups reported significantly more anomalies than the non-clinical group. However psychosis patients reported more frequent first-rank type symptoms and “hypomanic” type PEs than the other groups. Discussion: “Positive” PEs were common across the psychosis spectrum, although first-rank type symptoms were particularly marked in participants diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. Help-seeking and need-for-care were associated with the presence of subjective cognitive disturbances. These findings suggest that anomalies of cognition and attention may be more relevant to poorer outcomes than the presence of anomalous experiences.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2014.12.005

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brett, C. M. C., Peters, E. R., & McGuire, P. K.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Peters, E.R.
Venue
European Psychiatry
Published
2015-07
Volume
30
Issue
5
Pages
648-654
ISSN
  • 0924-9338 (ISSN-L)
  • 1778-3585
OpenAlex
W2073971917
Cited by
21
References
61
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • King's College Hospital
  • King's College London
  • Guys & St Thomas’ Charity Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
Keywords
psychotic experiences, help-seeking, clinical high risk for psychosis, psychosis continuum, dissociative experiences, first-rank symptoms, hallucinations, ideas of reference
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Female, Hallucinations, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Psychotic Disorders, Self Concept

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review