Cited by 157Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health Treatment and AccessMental Health and Psychiatry

Potential stigma associated with inclusion of the psychosis risk syndrome in the DSM-V: An empirical question

Open access
Yang, Lawrence H., Wonpat-Borja, Ahtoy J., Opler, Mark G., Corcoran, Cheryl M.·2010·Schizophrenia Research

Abstract

While the "clinical high-risk state" for psychosis has demonstrated good reliability and fair predictive validity for psychotic disorders, over 50% of identified subjects do not progress to psychosis. Despite the benefits that early detection and treatment might offer, debate concerning the official inclusion of a "psychosis risk syndrome" in the upcoming DSM-V frequently involves concerns about the impact of stigma on patients, families and institutions. We add to this debate by providing an analysis of the theoretical and empirical stigma literature to evaluate the potential effects of stigma associated with the psychosis risk syndrome. Theorists' conceptualizations of how stigma exerts its negative effects emphasize internalization of pejorative societal stereotypes ('self-stigma'), negative emotional reactions, harmful behavioral coping strategies, and structural discrimination as key mechanisms. Studies assessing the comparative effects of symptomatic behavior when compared with a psychiatric diagnosis label in predicting rejecting social attitudes indicate that treating symptomatic behaviors is likely to diminish overall stigma. However, any publically held 'preexisting conceptions' about what a psychosis risk syndrome means are still likely to exert negative effects. Additionally, particular features of this syndrome--that it occurs during adolescence when identity formation may be in flux--may also shape manifestations of stigma. Utilizing other well-established 'at-risk' conditions (e.g., genetic susceptibility) to model potential discrimination for this syndrome, we suggest that future discrimination is likely to occur in insurance and family domains. We conclude by proposing stigma measurement strategies, including recommending that field trials prior to DSM-V adopt systematic measures to assess any stigma that this psychosis risk syndrome might confer via future community use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.schres.2010.03.012

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Woods SW Addington J Cadenhead KS Cannon TD Cornblatt BA Heinssen R 2009 Validity of the prodromal risk syndrome for first psychosis: findings from the North American Prodrome Longitudinal Study Schizophrenia Bulletin 35 5 894 908 19386578 PMC2728816

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, L. H., Wonpat-Borja, A. J., Opler, M. G., & Corcoran, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Yang, Lawrence H.
Venue
Schizophrenia Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-07
Volume
120
Issue
1-3
Pages
42-48
ISSN
0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2165887956
Cited by
157
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NIMH (K01-MH73034-01, K23-MH066279-01A2)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
psychosis risk syndromes
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotic Disorders, Risk Factors, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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