Search

The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) is one of the most commonly used assessment tools for measuring psychotic symptoms. The Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS) is another instrument created specifically to assess delusions and auditory hallucinations. However, research on the concurrent validity of PSYRATS with PANSS is limited. There are also inconsistent findings regarding the association between the PSYRATS scales and the PANSS positive scale. The present study aims to add to the understanding of the concurrent validity of these measures, while also incorporating a broader measure of psychiatric symptoms (the symptom scale from the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale – split version, GAF-S). Spearman's Rank Order Correlations (rho) were calculated for scores from the PANSS positive scale, PSYRATS and GAF-S in a sample of 148 participants with psychotic disorders at three time points. The findings indicate concurrent validity between PSYRATS and PANSS, while the PSYRATS scales were not consistently correlated with GAF-S. PSYRATS may be a valid assessment tool for evaluating psychotic symptoms. The utility of PSYRATS in research and clinical practice should be investigated further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with psychotic disorders may be particularly vulnerable to adverse effects from restrictions implemented to limit the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental health professionals may also be at risk of adverse effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of potential changes in accessibility, quality of care and vocational activity on people with psychotic disorders and the impact on clinicians working in these conditions. Patients and clinicians in specialized mental health services for psychotic disorders answered questionnaires regarding changes in treatment, quality of treatment, vocational activity, and well-being. Data was analyzed with nonparametric tests. Inpatients appeared more influenced by the restrictions than outpatients, however, quality of treatment was regarded relatively unaffected. Clinicians seemed satisfied working under these conditions, though a larger portion of clinicians reported changes in treatment compared to patients. The patients who reported being affected by changes in vocational activity tended to report negative effects, but the majority reported being unaffected. Overall, patients and clinicians appeared to cope well with the changes they experienced in accessibility, quality of care and vocational activity during the early phases of the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]