Premium
Psychopathology and social functioning of 42 subjects from a Danish ultra high‐risk cohort
Author(s) -
Madsen Helle Karkov,
Nordholm Dorte,
Krakauer Kristine,
Randers Lasse,
Nordentoft Merete
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
early intervention in psychiatry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.087
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1751-7893
pISSN - 1751-7885
DOI - 10.1111/eip.12438
Subject(s) - psychopathology , danish , psychiatry , anxiety , psychology , clinical psychology , mini international neuropsychiatric interview , personality disorders , cohort , substance abuse , depression (economics) , global assessment of functioning , personality , schizophrenia (object oriented programming) , medicine , social psychology , linguistics , philosophy , economics , macroeconomics
Aim To make a thorough characterization of the co‐morbidity, psychopathology and demographics in the first Danish ultra high‐risk (UHR) sample. Method Forty‐two UHR subjects went through comprehensive interviews assessing their psychopathology, psychiatric disorders, substance use and family history of psychiatric disorders. Results All UHR subjects met the criteria of at least 1 axis I diagnosis in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition ( DSM‐IV ) and met on average four diagnoses (both axis I and II), mostly within the areas of depression, anxiety and substance abuse. A total of 48% had schizotypal personality disorder and 19% had borderline personality disorder. Level of functioning was low with a mean score on the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale corresponding to “major impairment in several areas,” and mean scores in the Global Functioning: Social and Role scales between “moderate impairment in social functioning” and “very serious impairment independently.” Forty‐seven percent were unemployed and 29% on sick leave. Fifty‐five percent relied financially on public support. Conclusion As seen in previous UHR populations, Danish UHR subjects had low function socio‐economically and met criteria of several psychiatric diagnoses, suggesting that they require pharmacological and non‐pharmacological psychiatric treatment as well as vocational and educational guidance and support.