Cited by 29Schizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and PsychiatryPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research

The nature and evolution of insight in schizophrenia: A multi-informant longitudinal study of first-episode versus chronic patients

Koren, Danny, Viksman, Polina, Giuliano, Anthony J., Seidman, Larry J.·2013·Schizophrenia Research

Abstract

Background and aims This study investigated a novel distinction between two possible sources of poor insight in schizophrenia: primary unawareness, in which the ill person is not aware that other people think one has a problem, and secondary unawareness (or disagreement), in which a person does appreciate that other people think one has a problem. A secondary goal was to compare the evolution of insight in first-episode and chronic schizophrenia.Methods Sixty-eight first-episode and 51 chronic patients were administered two versions of the Scale of Unawareness of Mental Disorder (SUMD) at three time points: hospital admission, discharge, and 6-month post-discharge. In the first standard SUMD version, they were asked about their own opinions, whereas in the second modified version, they were asked about their best guess of their doctor's opinion.Results While overall level of unawareness remained stable within each single episode, there were significant Type of Unawareness (primary versus secondary) by Clinical Status (admission versus discharge versus 6-month post-discharge) and Type of Unawareness by Phase of Illness (first-episode versus chronic) interaction effects. More specifically, in the first-episode group, primary unawareness steadily decreased over time. In contrast, in the chronic group, primary unawareness decreased markedly during hospitalization and returned to baseline after discharge.Conclusions These results provide preliminary support for the notion that impaired insight is an additive outcome of primary unawareness and disagreement, and that change in insight over time occurs mostly at the level of their relative proportion as opposed to their overall sum. Implications for studying and treating poor insight in schizophrenia are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.schres.2013.10.013

Cites

43 of 43 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

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koren, D., Viksman, P., Giuliano, A. J., & Seidman, L. J.
Affiliations
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • University of Haifa (IL)
Corresponding author
Koren, Danny
Venue
Schizophrenia Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-12
Volume
151
Issue
1-3
Pages
245-251
ISSN
0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2149177912
Cited by
29
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Pennsylvania
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Keywords
insight, schizophrenia
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Awareness, Chronic Disease, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Intelligence Tests, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, Antipsychotic Agents, Young Adult

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