RESUMO
Background: Past studies associating personality with psychosis have been limited by small nonclinical samples and a focus on general symptom burden. This study uses a large clinical sample to examine personality's relationship with psychosis-specific features and compare personality dimensions across clinically and neurobiologically defined categories of psychoses. Methods: A total of 1352 participants with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar with psychosis, as well as 623 healthy controls (HC), drawn from the Bipolar-Schizophrenia Network for Intermediate Phenotypes (BSNIP-2) study, were included. Three biomarker-derived biotypes were used to separately categorize the probands. Mean personality factors (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) were compared between HC and proband subgroups using independent sample t-tests. A robust linear regression was utilized to determine personality differences across biotypes and diagnostic subgroups. Associations between personality factors and cognition were determined through Pearson's correlation. A canonical correlation was run between the personality factors and general functioning, positive symptoms, and negative symptoms to delineate the relationship between personality and clinical outcomes of psychosis. Results: There were significant personality differences between the proband and HC groups across all five personality factors. Overall, the probands had higher neuroticism and lower extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness. Openness showed the greatest difference across the diagnostic subgroups and biotypes, and greatest correlation with cognition. Openness, agreeableness, and extraversion had the strongest associations with symptom severity. Conclusions: Individuals with psychosis have different personality profiles compared to HC. In particular, openness may be relevant in distinguishing psychosis-specific phenotypes and experiences, and associated with biological underpinnings of psychosis, including cognition. Further studies should identify potential causal factors and mediators of this relationship.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although the COVID-19 pandemic increased social isolation among hospitalised patients given isolation precautions, visitor restrictions and curtailed interactions with healthcare teams, medical students had limited opportunities for involvement in the care of inpatients. APPROACH: We designed a humanistic and narrative medicine intervention to engage medical students in combating social isolation in hospitalised patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a tertiary care teaching hospital. In our programme, medical students provided virtual social support to hospitalised patients via phone by providing assistance connecting with family members, having informal conversations and check-ins and writing up patient life narratives. EVALUATION: From April 2020 to March 2021, we received 126 referrals of potentially isolated patients from inpatient medical teams. Fifty patients accepted and received our intervention, including 26 who completed life narratives. Feedback was positive, demonstrating benefit to medical students in learning about humanism and connecting with patients through their life stories. In addition, patients and medical teams felt more supported. We share key operational lessons and resources to facilitate the implementation of this intervention elsewhere. IMPLICATIONS: Our intervention allows medical students to meaningfully contribute to the care of inpatients, support beleaguered inpatient teams and learn important lessons about humanism in medicine. This educational and patient care intervention holds promise in other settings, including beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.