A qualitative study on identity in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: " Why does it have to be one thing?".

OBJECTIVE: Qualitative research can shed light on the subjective experiences of individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis, complement quantitative research, broaden our understanding of experiencing CHR, and inform intervention development. The aim of this study was to explore life experiences of individuals at CHR through qualitative research. METHOD: Participants were 37 individuals at CHR (20 male, 17 female) aged 16-34 (Mage = 23.32 ± 5.26), and 16 healthy controls (HCs; 7 male, 9 female) aged 18-34 (Mage = 25.37 ± 4.05). Qualitative data were obtained through open-ended interviews (30-45 min). No a priori hypotheses were made, and thematic analyses were used to develop themes. RESULTS: Four major themes and one subtheme related to identity were identified through the iterative thematic analysis: defining a self-concept (with a subtheme of creativity), identity development/formation, feeling different from others, and change from a former self. Over 80% of the CHR cohort spontaneously discussed topics related to their identity, compared to 38% of HCs. HCs only reported content within the defining a self-concept theme, while the CHR group reported content within all themes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The present study demonstrates that identity formation is a major process for youth in general and that psychosis experiences can make this process more challenging. CHR participants spontaneously brought up multiple themes related to identity in open-ended interviews, suggesting the relevance of this topic in this population. Clinicians should continue to probe identity-related concerns on an individual basis and research should focus on integrating this framework into the conceptualization and treatment of CHR. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychosis-like experiences and resilience: A systematic and critical review of the literature.

Resilience research has documented the ability to cope with traumatic and stressful situations and/or retain functioning given certain risk factors in the context of psychosis. In this study, we conducted the first systematic review of the literature on psychosis-like experiences (PLEs) and resilience. Fifteen articles (from 11 unique study samples) from 10 countries were included in this systematic review, with a total of 11,937 unique study participants. Inclusion criteria were broad, capturing a wide range of individuals with PLEs who have not yet experienced threshold psychosis, such as individuals in the general population with elevated self-reports of PLEs, as well as clinical groups diagnosed by clinician interviews (i.e., clinical- or ultra-high-risk for psychosis [CHR or UHR]). For this review, studies needed to include research aims and empirical research related to resilience, and use an established or author-defined measure of psychological and/or social resilience. Data reporting quality was assessed with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital (PROGRESS) guidelines. Study aims and measurement of key variables varied widely, and all studies were cross-sectional. In 73% of the studies, resilience was inversely associated with PLEs or psychosis risk status (e.g., CHR or UHR). Results related to specific resilience subscales were mixed. Author-defined resilience was typically related to internal/psychological resources. Future research, particularly longitudinal research involving multidimensional measurement of resilience (e.g., internal and external factors), along with well-defined theoretical models, are necessary before drawing firm conclusions on resilience and PLEs. We propose a dynamic, multifaceted, developmentally appropriate, and culturally sensitive model of resilience for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).