4.5 Article

Baseline profiles of adolescent vs. adult-onset first-episode psychosis in an early detection program

期刊

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 119, 期 6, 页码 494-500

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2008.01338.x

关键词

first-episode psychosis; duration of untreated psychosis; adolescence

资金

  1. Helse Vest trust (Stavanger, Norway) [200202797-65]
  2. Norwegian National Research Council (Oslo) [133897/320]
  3. Norwegian Department of Health and Social Affairs [1997/41]
  4. National Council for Mental Health/Health and Rehabilitation
  5. Rogaland County (Stavanger, Norway)
  6. Theodore and Vada Stanley Foundation (Bethesda, Md)
  7. Regional Health Research Foundation for Eastern Region (Hilleroed, Denmark)
  8. Roskilde County (Roskilde, Denmark)
  9. Helsefonden Lundbeck Pharma (Hellerup, Denmark)
  10. Eli Lilly Denmark (Lyngby)
  11. Janssen-Cilag Pharmaceuticals Denmark
  12. National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD)
  13. National Institute of Mental Health (Rockville, Md) [MH-01654]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psychotic disorders often start in adolescence. We aim to investigate premorbid and baseline differences characterizing patients with an onset of psychosis in adolescence versus adulthood. We compare first-episode, DSM-IV non-affective psychosis with onset before (n = 43) and after (n = 189) 18 years on duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), level of symptoms, suicidal behaviour, and other baseline clinical and demographic characteristics. Adolescent onset patients had poorer premorbid functioning, a longer DUP, higher suicidality, and more depressive symptoms. They also had better cognition, fewer psychotic symptoms, and were more likely to be treated on an out-patient basis. Adolescents with first-episode psychosis may have a slower and more silent, i.e. insidious onset, and are at risk of experiencing longer treatment delays than adults. They fit the description of what used to be labeled process (versus reactive) schizophrenia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据