RESUMO
AIM: Bi-directional associations between loneliness and psychotic experiences (PEs) have been reported, but the mechanisms underlying these associations are unknown. This study aims to explore associations between daily reports of loneliness and PEs, and test differences in this association across young adult individuals at different levels of risk for psychosis. METHODS: We analysed 90-day diary data on loneliness and PEs from N = 96 participants (mean age 24.7, range 18-35, 77% female) divided into 4 subgroups, each indexing increased levels of risk for psychosis according to the clinical staging model: 'psychometric' (n = 25), 'low' (n = 27), 'mild' (n = 24), and 'ultra-high'(n = 20) risk. Multilevel vector autoregressive models examined within-day (contemporaneous) and between-day (temporal) associations between loneliness and PEs for the total sample. Next, these associations were compared across subgroups. RESULTS: Loneliness and PEs were significantly associated contemporaneously (partial correlation B = 0.14) but not temporally. Subgroup membership moderated both contemporaneous and temporal associations. The contemporaneous association between loneliness and PEs was stronger in the low-risk subgroup compared to the mild-risk (B = -0.35, p < .01) and ultra-high-risk (B = -0.36, p < .01) subgroups. The temporal association between loneliness on the previous day and PEs on the current day was stronger in mild-risk subgroup compared to the ultra-high-risk subgroup (B = -0.03, p = .03). After adjusting for multiple testing, only the contemporaneous-but not the temporal-associations remained statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness is associated with PEs in individuals at risk for psychosis, particularly in those with low to mild symptoms. Our findings tentatively suggest that especially individuals with low expressions of PEs may be more sensitive to social context, but future studies are needed to replicate and further unravel the potentially stage-specific interplay between social context and PEs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The clinical staging model states that psychosis develops through subsequent stages of illness severity. To better understand what drives illness progression, more extensive comparison across clinical stages is needed. The current paper presents an in-depth characterization of individuals with different levels of risk for psychosis (i.e., different early clinical stages), using a multimethod approach of cross-sectional assessments and daily diary reports. METHODS: Data came from the Mirorr study that includes N = 96 individuals, divided across four subgroups (n1 = 25, n2 = 27, n3 = 24, and n4 = 20). These subgroups, each with an increasing risk for psychosis, represent clinical stages 0-1b. Cross-sectional data and 90-day daily diary data on psychopathology, well-being, psychosocial functioning, risk and protective factors were statistically compared across subgroups (stages) and descriptively compared across domains and assessment methods. RESULTS: Psychopathology increased across subgroups, although not always linearly and nuanced differences were seen between assessment methods. Well-being and functioning differed mostly between subgroup 1 and the other subgroups, suggesting differences between non-clinical and clinical populations. Risk and protective factors differed mostly between the two highest and lowest subgroups, especially regarding need of social support and coping, suggesting differences between those with and without substantial psychotic experiences. Subgroup 4 (stage 1b) reported especially high levels of daily positive and negative psychotic experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Risk for psychosis exists in larger contexts of mental health and factors of risk and protection that differ across stages and assessment methods. Taking a broad, multi-method approach is an important next step to understand the complex development of youth mental health problems.
