Measuring interpersonal trauma: Development and validation of the German version of the victimization experience schedule (VES).

OBJECTIVE: Interpersonal victimization experiences (VEs) significantly affect mental and physical health, particularly in disorders associated with life-time adversities, like fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and major depressive disorder (MDD). However, assessing VEs comprehensively remains challenging due to limited tools that encompass sub-traumatic events, such as bullying or discrimination, and contextual dimensions. We aimed to address this gap by validating the Victimization Experience Schedule (VES) in German, examining its reliability, and assessing VEs in clinical populations with FMS and MDD. METHODS: We investigated the relationship between VEs and clinical symptoms in individuals with FMS, MDD and healthy controls (N = 105) in a case-control study. We also analyzed correlations between different types of VEs and categories of early childhood abuse and posttraumatic-stress-disorder instruments. Additionally, we validated our findings in an independent sample of individuals with FMS (N = 97) from a clinical study. RESULTS: We observed excellent inter-rater reliability (Kw = 0.90-0.99), and VEs assessed using the VES were in alignment with subcategories of early childhood abuse. The prevalence of VEs extended beyond the categories covered by traditional survey instruments and was higher in individuals with MDD (4.0 ± 2.6) and FMS (5.9 ± 3.1) compared to controls (1.5 ± 1.7). We consistently identified a significant association between the number of VEs, the associated subjective distress, and clinical scores. Furthermore, distinct correlation patterns between VEs and clinical outcomes emerged across different cohorts. CONCLUSION: Our study emphasizes the VES's value in understanding VEs within MDD and FMS. These experiences span from traumatic to sub-traumatic and correlate with posttraumatic-stress and clinical symptoms, underscoring the VES's importance as an assessment tool.

Need for care, adversity exposure and perceived stress in clinical and healthy voice-hearers.

OBJECTIVES: Psychosis, and in particular auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs), are associated with adversity exposure. However, AVHs also occur in populations with no need for care or distress. AIMS: This study investigated whether adversity exposure would differentiate clinical and healthy voice-hearers within the context of a 'three-hit' model of vulnerability and stress exposure. METHODS: Samples of 57 clinical and 45 healthy voice-hearers were compared on the three 'hits': familial risk; adversity exposure in childhood and in adolescence/adulthood. RESULTS: Clinical voice-hearers showed greater familial risk than healthy voice-hearers, with more family members with a history of psychosis, but not with other mental disorders. The two groups did not differ in their exposure to adversity in childhood [sexual and non-sexual, victimisation; discrimination and socio-economic status (SES)]. Contrary to expectations, clinical voice-hearers did not differ from healthy voice-hearers in their exposure to victimisation (sexual/non-sexual) and discrimination in adolescence/adulthood, but reported more cannabis and substance misuse, and lower SES. CONCLUSIONS: The current study found no evidence that clinical and healthy voice-hearers differ in lifetime victimisation exposure, suggesting victimisation may be linked to the emergence of AVHs generally, rather than need-for-care. Familial risk, substance misuse and lower SES may be additional risk factors involved in the emergence of need-for-care and distress.

Clinical, socio-demographic and psychological characteristics in individuals with persistent psychotic experiences with and without a "need for care".

Individuals reporting persistent psychotic experiences (PEs) in the general population, but without a "need for care", are a unique group of particular importance in identifying risk and protective factors for psychosis. We compared people with persistent PEs and no "need for care" (non-clinical, N=92) with patients diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (clinical, N=84) and controls without PEs (N=83), in terms of their phenomenological, socio-demographic and psychological features. The 259 participants were recruited from one urban and one rural area in the UK, as part of the UNIQUE (Unusual Experiences Enquiry) study. Results showed that the non-clinical group experienced hallucinations in all modalities as well as first-rank symptoms, with an earlier age of onset than in the clinical group. Somatic/tactile hallucinations were more frequent than in the clinical group, while commenting and conversing voices were rare. Participants in the non-clinical group were differentiated from their clinical counterparts by being less paranoid and deluded, apart from ideas of reference, and having fewer cognitive difficulties and negative symptoms. Unlike the clinical group, they were characterized neither by low psychosocial functioning nor by social adversity. However, childhood trauma featured in both groups. They were similar to the controls in psychological characteristics: they did not report current emotional problems, had intact self-esteem, displayed healthy schemas about the self and others, showed high life satisfaction and well-being, and high mindfulness. These findings support biopsychosocial models postulating that environmental and psychological factors interact with biological processes in the aetiology of psychosis. While some PEs may be more malign than others, lower levels of social and environmental adversity, combined with protective factors such as intact IQ, spirituality, and psychological and emotional well-being, may reduce the likelihood of persistent PEs leading to pathological outcomes. Future research should focus on protective factors and determinants of well-being in the context of PEs, rather than exclusively on risk factors and biomarkers of disease states.

Migration, ethnicity, and psychosis: toward a sociodevelopmental model.

There is consistent and strong evidence that the incidence of all psychoses is higher in many migrant and minority ethnic populations in a number of countries. The reasons for this are, however, unclear and a wide range of explanations have been proposed, from genetic to neurodevelopmental to psychosocial. In this article, we describe and evaluate the available evidence for and against each of these. What this shows is that: (1) there are few studies that have directly investigated specific risk factors in migrant and minority ethnic populations, with often only 1 or 2 studies of any relevance to specific explanations and (2) what limited research there has been tends to implicate a diverse range of social factors (including childhood separation from parents, discrimination and, at an area level, ethnic density) as being of potential importance. In an attempt to synthesize these disparate findings and provide a basis for future research, we go on to propose an integrated model--of a sociodevelopmental pathway to psychosis--to account for the reported high rates in migrant and minority ethnic populations. Aspects of this model will be directly tested in a new Europe-wide incidence and case-control study that we will conduct over the next 3 years, as part of the European Network of National Schizophrenia Networks studying Gene-Environment Interactions programme.