RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Formal Thought Disorder (FTD) is a recognised psychiatric symptom, yet its characterisation remains debated. This is problematic because it contributes to poor efficiency and heterogeneity in psychiatric research, with salient clinical impact. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate expert opinion on the concept, measurement and clinical utility of FTD using the Delphi technique. METHOD: Across three rounds, experts were queried on their definitions of FTD, methods for the assessment and measurement of FTD, associated clinical outcomes and treatment options. RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 56 experts, demonstrating varying levels of consensus across different aspects of FTD. While consensus (>80 %) was reached for some aspects on the concept of FTD, including its definition and associated symptomology and mechanisms, others remained less clear. Overall, the universal importance attributed to the clinical understanding, measurement and treatment of FTD was clear, although consensus was infrequent as to the reasons behind and methods for doing so. CONCLUSIONS: Our results contribute to the still elusive formal definition of FTD. The multitude of interpretations regarding these topics highlights the need for further clarity with this phenomenon. Our findings emphasised that the measurement and clinical utility of FTD are closely tied to the concept; hence, until there is agreement on the concept of FTD, difficulties with measuring and understanding its clinical usefulness to inform treatment interventions will persist. Future FTD research should focus on clarifying the factor structure and dimensionality to determine the latent structure and elucidate the core clinical phenotype.
RESUMO
Disorganised speech, or, formal thought disorder (FTD), is considered one of the core features of psychosis, yet its factor structure remains debated. This systematic review aimed to identify the core dimensions of FTD. In line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), a systematic review was conducted on the FTD factor analytic literature. Sixteen studies were identified from PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science between October 1971 and January 2023. Across the 39 factor analyses investigated, findings demonstrated the prominence of a three-factor structure. Broad agreement was found for two factors within the three-factor model, which were typically referred to as disorganisation and negative, with the exact nature of the third dimension requiring further clarification. The quality assessment revealed some methodological challenges relating to the assessment of FTD and conducted factor analyses. Future research should clarify the exact nature of the third dimension across different patient groups and methodologies to determine whether a consistent transdiagnostic concept of FTD can be elucidated.
