Cited by 15Mental Health and PsychiatrySchizophrenia research and treatmentPsychology and Mental Health

Insight in psychosis: Standards, science, ethics and value judgment

Jacob, KS·2017·International Journal of Social Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: The clinical assessment of insight solely employs biomedical perspectives and criteria to the complete exclusion of context and culture and to the disregard of values and value judgments. Aim: The aim of this discussion article is to examine recent research from India on insight and explanatory models in psychosis and re-examine the framework of assessment, diagnosis and management of insight and explanatory models. Methods: Recent research from India on insight in psychosis and explanatory models is reviewed. Results: Recent research, which has used longitudinal data and adjusted for pretreatment variables, suggests that insight and explanatory models of illness at baseline do not predict course, outcome and treatment response in schizophrenia, which seem to be dependent on the severity and quality of the psychosis. It supports the view that people with psychosis simultaneously hold multiple and contradictory explanatory models of illness, which change over time and with the trajectory of the illness. It suggests that insight, like all explanatory models, is a narrative of the person’s reality and a coping strategy to handle with the varied impact of the illness. Conclusion: This article argues that the assessment of insight necessarily involves value entailments, commitments and consequences. It supports a need for a broad-based approach to assess awareness, attribution and action related to mental illness and to acknowledge the role of values and value judgment in the evaluation of insight in psychosis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0020764017693655

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 15

Authors
Jacob, K.
Affiliations
Christian Medical College, Vellore (IN)
Corresponding author
Jacob, KS
Venue
International Journal of Social Psychiatry
Published
2017-02-01
Volume
63
Issue
4
Pages
345-351
ISSN
  • 0020-7640 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-2854
OpenAlex
W2592977051
Cited by
15
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
FWCI
4.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Social Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
Keywords
explanatory models of illness, schizophrenia, value judgments, cultural context of illness, illness attribution, coping strategies, treatment response prediction
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, India, Judgment, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenic Psychology, Models, Educational

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