Pub Date : 2022-10-01Epub Date: 2022-08-29DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00236-X
Louise Isham, Bao Sheng Loe, Alice Hicks, Natalie Wilson, Jessica C Bird, Richard P Bentall, Daniel Freeman
Background: The content of grandiose delusions-inaccurate beliefs that one has special powers, wealth, mission, or identity-is likely to be highly meaningful. The meaning, for example providing a sense of purpose, could prove to be a key factor in the delusion taking hold. We aimed to empirically define and develop measures of the experience of meaning in grandiose delusions and the sources of this meaning, and to test whether severity of grandiosity in clinical and non-clinical populations is associated with level of meaning.
Methods: We did a cross-sectional self-report questionnaire study in two cohorts: non-clinical participants aged 18 years and older, with UK or Irish nationality or residence; and patients with affective or non-affective psychosis diagnoses, aged 16 years and older, and accessing secondary care mental health services in 39 National Health Service providers in England and Wales. Participants with high grandiosity completed two large item pools: one assessing the experience of meaning in grandiose delusions (Grandiosity Meaning Measure [termed gram]) and one assessing the sources of meaning (Grandiosity Meaning Measure-Sources [termed grams]). The Grandiosity Meaning Measure and Grandiosity Meaning Measure-Sources were developed using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Structural equation modelling was used to test the associations of meaning with the severity of grandiosity. The primary outcome measure for grandiosity was the Specific Psychotic Experiences Questionnaire (grandiosity subscale) and associations were tested with the Grandiosity Meaning Measure and the Grandiosity Meaning Measure-Sources.
Findings: From Aug 30, 2019, to Nov 21, 2020, 13 323 non-clinical participants were enrolled. 2821 (21%) were men and 10 134 (76%) were women, 11 974 (90%) were White, and the mean age was 39·5 years (SD 18·6 [range 18-93]). From March 22, 2021, to March 3, 2022, 798 patients with psychosis were enrolled. 475 (60%) were men and 313 (39%) were women, 614 (77%) were White, and the mean age was 43·4 years (SD 13·8 [range 16-81]). The experience of meaning in relation to grandiose delusions had three components: coherence, purpose, and significance. The sources of meaning had seven components: positive social perceptions, spirituality, overcoming adversity, confidence in self among others, greater good, supporting loved ones, and happiness. The measurement of meaning was invariant across clinical and non-clinical populations. In the clinical population, each person typically endorsed multiple meanings and sources of meaning for the grandiose delusion. Meaning in grandiose delusions was strongly associated with severity of grandiosity, explaining 53·5% of variance, and with grandiose delusion conviction explaining 27·4% of variance. Grandiosity was especially associated with sense of purpose, and grandiose delusion conviction with coherence.
{"title":"The meaning in grandiose delusions: measure development and cohort studies in clinical psychosis and non-clinical general population groups in the UK and Ireland.","authors":"Louise Isham, Bao Sheng Loe, Alice Hicks, Natalie Wilson, Jessica C Bird, Richard P Bentall, Daniel Freeman","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00236-X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00236-X","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The content of grandiose delusions-inaccurate beliefs that one has special powers, wealth, mission, or identity-is likely to be highly meaningful. The meaning, for example providing a sense of purpose, could prove to be a key factor in the delusion taking hold. We aimed to empirically define and develop measures of the experience of meaning in grandiose delusions and the sources of this meaning, and to test whether severity of grandiosity in clinical and non-clinical populations is associated with level of meaning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did a cross-sectional self-report questionnaire study in two cohorts: non-clinical participants aged 18 years and older, with UK or Irish nationality or residence; and patients with affective or non-affective psychosis diagnoses, aged 16 years and older, and accessing secondary care mental health services in 39 National Health Service providers in England and Wales. Participants with high grandiosity completed two large item pools: one assessing the experience of meaning in grandiose delusions (Grandiosity Meaning Measure [termed gram]) and one assessing the sources of meaning (Grandiosity Meaning Measure-Sources [termed grams]). The Grandiosity Meaning Measure and Grandiosity Meaning Measure-Sources were developed using exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Structural equation modelling was used to test the associations of meaning with the severity of grandiosity. The primary outcome measure for grandiosity was the Specific Psychotic Experiences Questionnaire (grandiosity subscale) and associations were tested with the Grandiosity Meaning Measure and the Grandiosity Meaning Measure-Sources.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>From Aug 30, 2019, to Nov 21, 2020, 13 323 non-clinical participants were enrolled. 2821 (21%) were men and 10 134 (76%) were women, 11 974 (90%) were White, and the mean age was 39·5 years (SD 18·6 [range 18-93]). From March 22, 2021, to March 3, 2022, 798 patients with psychosis were enrolled. 475 (60%) were men and 313 (39%) were women, 614 (77%) were White, and the mean age was 43·4 years (SD 13·8 [range 16-81]). The experience of meaning in relation to grandiose delusions had three components: coherence, purpose, and significance. The sources of meaning had seven components: positive social perceptions, spirituality, overcoming adversity, confidence in self among others, greater good, supporting loved ones, and happiness. The measurement of meaning was invariant across clinical and non-clinical populations. In the clinical population, each person typically endorsed multiple meanings and sources of meaning for the grandiose delusion. Meaning in grandiose delusions was strongly associated with severity of grandiosity, explaining 53·5% of variance, and with grandiose delusion conviction explaining 27·4% of variance. Grandiosity was especially associated with sense of purpose, and grandiose delusion conviction with coherence.","PeriodicalId":240194,"journal":{"name":"The lancet. Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"792-803"},"PeriodicalIF":64.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40335039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00309-1
Rasmus R Larsen, Luca F Maschião, Valter L Piedade, Guilherme Messas, Janna Hastings
{"title":"Applied ontology for phenomenological psychopathology? A cautionary tale - Authors' reply.","authors":"Rasmus R Larsen, Luca F Maschião, Valter L Piedade, Guilherme Messas, Janna Hastings","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00309-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00309-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":240194,"journal":{"name":"The lancet. Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"766"},"PeriodicalIF":64.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40365844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-01DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00305-4
Mark Mohan Kaggwa, Sheila Harms, Mohammed A Mamun
{"title":"Mental health care in Uganda.","authors":"Mark Mohan Kaggwa, Sheila Harms, Mohammed A Mamun","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00305-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00305-4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":240194,"journal":{"name":"The lancet. Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"766-767"},"PeriodicalIF":64.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40365845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01Epub Date: 2022-08-03DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00268-1
Marina Mihaljevic
{"title":"Neuropsychiatric risk in children with intellectual disability: knowns and unknowns.","authors":"Marina Mihaljevic","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00268-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00268-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":240194,"journal":{"name":"The lancet. Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"690-691"},"PeriodicalIF":64.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40588203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00272-3
Erika E Forbes, David J Kupfer
{"title":"Mentoring early-career scientists in academic psychiatry during the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Erika E Forbes, David J Kupfer","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00272-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00272-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":240194,"journal":{"name":"The lancet. Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"698-699"},"PeriodicalIF":64.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9371583/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40612384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Suicide in children is a pressing public health concern. The increasing number of deaths by suicide and emergency visits for suicidal ideation and self-harm in children might not be fully representative; it is likely that many more children are in distress but do not seek out help. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing studies to quantify the prevalence of suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours among children in the community aged 12 years and younger.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Web of Science via OVID from database inception to Feb 28, 2022, for articles published in French or English that reported estimates of prevalence of suicidal ideation (including suicide planning) and self-harm behaviours (namely, self-harm, suicide attempts, and non-suicidal self-injury) in children aged 12 years and younger. Reference lists were also searched; case studies, qualitative studies, and health-care visit studies were excluded. The outcomes were suicidal ideation, suicide plan or attempts, and self-harm. We used a random-effects model to calculate the overall pooled prevalence of suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours for all timeframes combined and for ever versus the past 12 months for suicidal ideation. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool to evaluate the risk of bias in each study. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020179041.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>28 articles, encompassing 30 studies overall, met the inclusion criteria, aggregating findings from 98 044 children (of whom 46 980 [50·5%] were girls and 46 136 [49·5%] were boys; six articles did not report sex or gender) aged 6-12 years. The pooled prevalence estimate was 7·5% (95% CI 5·9-9·6) for suicidal ideation from 28 studies and 2·2% (2·0-2·5) for suicide planning from three studies. The pooled prevalence was 1·4% (0·4-4·7) for self-harm from four studies, 1·3% (1·0-1·9) for suicide attempt from six studies, and 21·9% (6·2-54·5) for non-suicidal self-injury from two studies. The prevalence of suicidal ideation was higher in studies that included child-reported outcomes (10·9% [95% CI 8·1-14·5] for child only and 10·4% [6·8-15·5] for child and parent combined) than for parent-only reported outcomes (4·7% [3·4-6·6]; p=0·0004). The prevalence of suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours was similar in boys and girls (suicidal ideation, 7·9% [95% CI 5·2-12·0] for boys vs 6·4% [3·7-10·7] for girls; self-harm behaviours, 3·5% [1·6-7·2] for boys vs 3·0% [1·4-6·4%] for girls). Detailed ethnicity data were not available. High heterogeneity was identified across estimates (I<sup>2</sup>>90%), which was not well explained by the characteristics of the studies.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>A high number of children in the general population can experience suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours, thus underlini
{"title":"Prevalence of suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours in children aged 12 years and younger: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Marie-Claude Geoffroy, Samantha Bouchard, Megan Per, Bassam Khoury, Elise Chartrand, Johanne Renaud, Gustavo Turecki, Ian Colman, Massimiliano Orri","doi":"10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00193-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00193-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Suicide in children is a pressing public health concern. The increasing number of deaths by suicide and emergency visits for suicidal ideation and self-harm in children might not be fully representative; it is likely that many more children are in distress but do not seek out help. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing studies to quantify the prevalence of suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours among children in the community aged 12 years and younger.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Web of Science via OVID from database inception to Feb 28, 2022, for articles published in French or English that reported estimates of prevalence of suicidal ideation (including suicide planning) and self-harm behaviours (namely, self-harm, suicide attempts, and non-suicidal self-injury) in children aged 12 years and younger. Reference lists were also searched; case studies, qualitative studies, and health-care visit studies were excluded. The outcomes were suicidal ideation, suicide plan or attempts, and self-harm. We used a random-effects model to calculate the overall pooled prevalence of suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours for all timeframes combined and for ever versus the past 12 months for suicidal ideation. We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool to evaluate the risk of bias in each study. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020179041.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>28 articles, encompassing 30 studies overall, met the inclusion criteria, aggregating findings from 98 044 children (of whom 46 980 [50·5%] were girls and 46 136 [49·5%] were boys; six articles did not report sex or gender) aged 6-12 years. The pooled prevalence estimate was 7·5% (95% CI 5·9-9·6) for suicidal ideation from 28 studies and 2·2% (2·0-2·5) for suicide planning from three studies. The pooled prevalence was 1·4% (0·4-4·7) for self-harm from four studies, 1·3% (1·0-1·9) for suicide attempt from six studies, and 21·9% (6·2-54·5) for non-suicidal self-injury from two studies. The prevalence of suicidal ideation was higher in studies that included child-reported outcomes (10·9% [95% CI 8·1-14·5] for child only and 10·4% [6·8-15·5] for child and parent combined) than for parent-only reported outcomes (4·7% [3·4-6·6]; p=0·0004). The prevalence of suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours was similar in boys and girls (suicidal ideation, 7·9% [95% CI 5·2-12·0] for boys vs 6·4% [3·7-10·7] for girls; self-harm behaviours, 3·5% [1·6-7·2] for boys vs 3·0% [1·4-6·4%] for girls). Detailed ethnicity data were not available. High heterogeneity was identified across estimates (I<sup>2</sup>>90%), which was not well explained by the characteristics of the studies.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>A high number of children in the general population can experience suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours, thus underlini","PeriodicalId":240194,"journal":{"name":"The lancet. Psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":"703-714"},"PeriodicalIF":64.3,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40674110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号