Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDikeos, Dimitris G
dc.contributor.authorWickham, Harvey
dc.contributor.authorMcDonald, Colm
dc.contributor.authorWalshe, Muriel
dc.contributor.authorSigmundsson, Thordur
dc.contributor.authorBramon, Elvira
dc.contributor.authorGrech, Anton
dc.contributor.authorToulopoulou, Timothea
dc.contributor.authorMurray, Robin
dc.contributor.authorSham, Pak C
dc.date.accessioned2007-11-09T09:04:39Z
dc.date.available2007-11-09T09:04:39Z
dc.date.issued2006-10-01
dc.identifier.citationBr J Psychiatry 2006, 189:346-53en
dc.identifier.issn0007-1250
dc.identifier.pmid17012658
dc.identifier.doi10.1192/bjp.bp.105.017251
dc.identifier.otherPSY12
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2336/14525
dc.descriptionTo access publisher full text version of this article. Please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links fielden
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Dimensional structures are established for many psychiatric diagnoses, but dimensions have not been compared between diagnostic groups. AIMS: To examine the structure of dimensions in psychosis, to analyse their correlations with disease characteristics and to assess the relative contribution of dimensions v. diagnosis in explaining these characteristics. METHOD: Factor analysis of the OPCRIT items of 191 Maudsley Family Study patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders with psychosis, schizoaffective disorder, and other psychotic illnesses, followed by regression of disease characteristics from factor scores and diagnosis. RESULTS: Five factors were identified (mania, reality distortion, depression, disorganisation, negative); all were more variable in schizophrenia than in affective psychosis. Mania was the best discriminator between schizophrenia and affective psychosis; the negative factor was strongly correlated with poor premorbid functioning, insidious onset and worse course. Dimensions explained more of the disease characteristics than did diagnosis, but the explanatory power of the latter was also high. CONCLUSIONS: Kraepelinian diagnostic categories suffice for understanding illness characteristics, but the use of dimensions adds substantial information.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherRoyal College Of Psychiatristsen
dc.relation.urlhttp://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4/346en
dc.subject.meshAffective Disorders, Psychoticen
dc.subject.meshAdulten
dc.subject.meshDiagnosis, Differentialen
dc.subject.meshFactor Analysis, Statisticalen
dc.subject.meshSchizophreniaen
dc.titleDistribution of symptom dimensions across Kraepelinian divisionsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalBritish journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental scienceen
dc.format.digYES
html.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Dimensional structures are established for many psychiatric diagnoses, but dimensions have not been compared between diagnostic groups. AIMS: To examine the structure of dimensions in psychosis, to analyse their correlations with disease characteristics and to assess the relative contribution of dimensions v. diagnosis in explaining these characteristics. METHOD: Factor analysis of the OPCRIT items of 191 Maudsley Family Study patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders with psychosis, schizoaffective disorder, and other psychotic illnesses, followed by regression of disease characteristics from factor scores and diagnosis. RESULTS: Five factors were identified (mania, reality distortion, depression, disorganisation, negative); all were more variable in schizophrenia than in affective psychosis. Mania was the best discriminator between schizophrenia and affective psychosis; the negative factor was strongly correlated with poor premorbid functioning, insidious onset and worse course. Dimensions explained more of the disease characteristics than did diagnosis, but the explanatory power of the latter was also high. CONCLUSIONS: Kraepelinian diagnostic categories suffice for understanding illness characteristics, but the use of dimensions adds substantial information.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record