Cargando…
Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States
BACKGROUND: Since its inception, research in the clinical high-risk (CHR) phase of psychosis has included identifying and exploring the impact of relevant socio-demographic factors. Employing a narrative review approach and highlighting work from the United States, sociocultural and contextual facto...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10040591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36993932 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1117022 |
_version_ | 1784912508475146240 |
---|---|
author | Bridgwater, Miranda A. Petti, Emily Giljen, Maksim Akouri-Shan, LeeAnn DeLuca, Joseph S. Rakhshan Rouhakhtar, Pamela Millar, Caroline Karcher, Nicole R. Martin, Elizabeth A. DeVylder, Jordan Anglin, Deidre Williams, Raquel Ellman, Lauren M. Mittal, Vijay A. Schiffman, Jason |
author_facet | Bridgwater, Miranda A. Petti, Emily Giljen, Maksim Akouri-Shan, LeeAnn DeLuca, Joseph S. Rakhshan Rouhakhtar, Pamela Millar, Caroline Karcher, Nicole R. Martin, Elizabeth A. DeVylder, Jordan Anglin, Deidre Williams, Raquel Ellman, Lauren M. Mittal, Vijay A. Schiffman, Jason |
author_sort | Bridgwater, Miranda A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Since its inception, research in the clinical high-risk (CHR) phase of psychosis has included identifying and exploring the impact of relevant socio-demographic factors. Employing a narrative review approach and highlighting work from the United States, sociocultural and contextual factors potentially affecting the screening, assessment, and service utilization of youth at CHR were reviewed from the current literature. RESULTS: Existing literature suggests that contextual factors impact the predictive performance of widely used psychosis-risk screening tools and may introduce systemic bias and challenges to differential diagnosis in clinical assessment. Factors reviewed include racialized identity, discrimination, neighborhood context, trauma, immigration status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and age. Furthermore, racialized identity and traumatic experiences appear related to symptom severity and service utilization among this population. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, a growing body of research from the United States and beyond suggests that considering context in psychosis-risk assessment can provide a more accurate appraisal of the nature of risk for psychosis, render more accurate results improving the field's prediction of conversion to psychosis, and enhance our understanding of psychosis-risk trajectories. More work is needed in the U.S. and across the globe to uncover how structural racism and systemic biases impact screening, assessment, treatment, and clinical and functional outcomes for those at CHR. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10040591 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100405912023-03-28 Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States Bridgwater, Miranda A. Petti, Emily Giljen, Maksim Akouri-Shan, LeeAnn DeLuca, Joseph S. Rakhshan Rouhakhtar, Pamela Millar, Caroline Karcher, Nicole R. Martin, Elizabeth A. DeVylder, Jordan Anglin, Deidre Williams, Raquel Ellman, Lauren M. Mittal, Vijay A. Schiffman, Jason Front Psychiatry Psychiatry BACKGROUND: Since its inception, research in the clinical high-risk (CHR) phase of psychosis has included identifying and exploring the impact of relevant socio-demographic factors. Employing a narrative review approach and highlighting work from the United States, sociocultural and contextual factors potentially affecting the screening, assessment, and service utilization of youth at CHR were reviewed from the current literature. RESULTS: Existing literature suggests that contextual factors impact the predictive performance of widely used psychosis-risk screening tools and may introduce systemic bias and challenges to differential diagnosis in clinical assessment. Factors reviewed include racialized identity, discrimination, neighborhood context, trauma, immigration status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and age. Furthermore, racialized identity and traumatic experiences appear related to symptom severity and service utilization among this population. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, a growing body of research from the United States and beyond suggests that considering context in psychosis-risk assessment can provide a more accurate appraisal of the nature of risk for psychosis, render more accurate results improving the field's prediction of conversion to psychosis, and enhance our understanding of psychosis-risk trajectories. More work is needed in the U.S. and across the globe to uncover how structural racism and systemic biases impact screening, assessment, treatment, and clinical and functional outcomes for those at CHR. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-03-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10040591/ /pubmed/36993932 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1117022 Text en Copyright © 2023 Bridgwater, Petti, Giljen, Akouri-Shan, DeLuca, Rakhshan Rouhakhtar, Millar, Karcher, Martin, DeVylder, Anglin, Williams, Ellman, Mittal and Schiffman. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychiatry Bridgwater, Miranda A. Petti, Emily Giljen, Maksim Akouri-Shan, LeeAnn DeLuca, Joseph S. Rakhshan Rouhakhtar, Pamela Millar, Caroline Karcher, Nicole R. Martin, Elizabeth A. DeVylder, Jordan Anglin, Deidre Williams, Raquel Ellman, Lauren M. Mittal, Vijay A. Schiffman, Jason Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States |
title | Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States |
title_full | Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States |
title_fullStr | Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States |
title_full_unstemmed | Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States |
title_short | Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States |
title_sort | review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the united states |
topic | Psychiatry |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10040591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36993932 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1117022 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bridgwatermirandaa reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT pettiemily reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT giljenmaksim reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT akourishanleeann reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT delucajosephs reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT rakhshanrouhakhtarpamela reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT millarcaroline reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT karchernicoler reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT martinelizabetha reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT devylderjordan reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT anglindeidre reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT williamsraquel reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT ellmanlaurenm reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT mittalvijaya reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates AT schiffmanjason reviewoffactorsresultinginsystemicbiasesinthescreeningassessmentandtreatmentofindividualsatclinicalhighriskforpsychosisintheunitedstates |