Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9klzr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T14:31:49.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An updated and conservative systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological evidence on psychotic experiences in children and adults: on the pathway from proneness to persistence to dimensional expression across mental disorders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2012

R. J. Linscott
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Otago, New Zealand Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, South Limburg Mental Health Research and Teaching Network, EURON, Maastricht University, The Netherlands
J. van Os*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, South Limburg Mental Health Research and Teaching Network, EURON, Maastricht University, The Netherlands King's College London, King's Health Partners, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
*
*Address for correspondence: Professor J. van Os, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, South Limburg Mental Health Research and Teaching Network, EURON, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616 (DRT 10), 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. (Email: j.vanos@sp.unimaas.nl)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The psychosis-proneness–persistence–impairment model of psychotic disorder incorporates notions of both phenomenological and temporal continuity (persistence) of psychotic experiences (PE), but not structural continuity. Specific testable propositions of phenomenological continuity and persistence are identified.

Method

Propositions are tested by systematic reviews of the epidemiology of PE, persistence of PE and disorder outcomes, and meta-analyses (including Monte Carlo permutation sampling, MCPS) of reported rates and odds ratios (ORs).

Results

Estimates of the incidence and prevalence of PE obtained from 61 cohorts revealed a median annual incidence of 2.5% and a prevalence of 7.2%. Meta-analysis of risk factors identified age, minority or migrant status, income, education, employment, marital status, alcohol use, cannabis use, stress, urbanicity and family history of mental illness as important predictors of PE. The mode of assessment accounted for significant variance in the observed rates. Across cohorts, the probability of persistence was very strongly related to the rate of PE at baseline. Of those who report PE, ∼20% go on to experience persistent PE whereas for ∼80%, PE remit over time. Of those with baseline PE, 7.4% develop a psychotic disorder outcome.

Conclusions

Compelling support is found for the phenomenological and temporal continuity between PE and psychotic disorder and for the fundamental proposition that this relationship is probabilistic. However, imprecision in epidemiological research design, measurement limitations and the epiphenomenological nature of PE invite further robust scrutiny of the continuity theory.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Introduction

In 2007 we undertook a systematic review of psychotic experiences (PE) to examine questions on the validity of the psychosis continuum (van Os et al. Reference van Os, Linscott, Myin-Germeys, Delespaul and Krabbendam2009). The review revealed that more than 8% of the general population report PE; that for many, PE are not associated with clinical impairment; and PE are predicted by those factors that also predict non-affective psychotic disorder. Since 2007, the number of publications on PE in the general population has increased dramatically. Our aims were to undertake a new review of this literature and to address two specific objectives. First, the reported rate of PE in the general population (8%) may have been overestimated because the review included self-report data derived from items that describe phenomena that, although like psychosis, would almost certainly not constitute evidence of psychotic phenomena. Therefore, in this review we adopted a much more conservative approach to self-reported PE to determine whether our previous conclusions were justified. Second, the large increase in available data affords an opportunity to test the psychosis-proneness–persistence–impairment model of psychotic disorder. Therefore, we identified key propositions of this model and tested these by review and meta-analysis of epidemiological evidence of the frequency, persistence and outcome of PE. Other types of evidence are undoubtedly relevant but are not considered here.

PE and continuity

PE comprise hallucinations and delusions. PE may or may not be bizarre, engender distress, draw attention or prompt help seeking. They comprise phenomena that may be appraised as clinically relevant symptoms or as subclinical, not reaching a threshold of clinical relevance because of the absence of sufficient corollaries of disorder. PE merge somewhat indistinguishably with hallucination- and delusion-like personality, individual difference or dispositional characteristics. In combination, these are referred to as schizotypal personality, schizotypy or psychosis-proneness. Although psychotic disorder currently may be diagnosed in the absence of PE, PE is typically only used narrowly, in reference to hallucinations and delusions and not other phenomena that may also characterize psychotic disorder.

It is frequently claimed that PE are continuous, although what is meant precisely is seldom specified. There are three ways to understand continuity: first, phenomenological continuity refers to the idea that PE that are characteristic of psychotic disorder are not exclusive to disorder, and that PE occur independently of disorder, differing only quantitatively from dispositional or personality variables captured by the notion of psychosis-proneness or schizotypy. Second, temporal continuity or persistence refers to the idea that PE may endure over time. Third, structural continuity relates to the distribution of PE in the general population; that is, whether a population is composed of a single class of people, with or without quantitative variation in phenotype expression, or two or more classes of people with qualitatively distinguishable phenotypes that may or may not also vary quantitatively.

The psychosis-proneness–persistence–impairment model holds that PE are continuous with psychotic disorder in two senses. In the model, early expression of psychosis-proneness, incorporating PE, is typically transient and relatively common. However, stressors act to prolong and exacerbate the severity of psychosis-proneness, increasing the probability of clinical significant PE, need for care, and psychotic disorder (van Os et al. Reference van Os, Linscott, Myin-Germeys, Delespaul and Krabbendam2009). Thus, the psychosis-proneness–persistence–impairment model involves concepts of both phenomenological and temporal continuity.

This model of continuity between PE and disorder incorporates two important propositions: first, the PE–disorder relationship is part of the pathogenesis of psychotic disorder insofar as PE occur early in the sequence that results in the onset of disorder. Second, the relationship is probabilistic and not deterministic. Factors that affect the odds of disorder include PE attributes (e.g. intrusiveness, frequency) in addition to prior and co-occurring variables that increase stress, whether psychosocial and biological, or decrease the effectiveness of compensatory mechanisms and coping behaviour (Johns & van Os, Reference Johns and van Os2001). Similar propositions are inherent in other continuity models (e.g. Meehl, Reference Meehl1990).

By contrast, this model does not require structural continuity (a single class with quantitative variation in expression) and is compatible with basic forms of both structural continuity and discontinuity. Indeed, the weight of evidence suggests that the general population is composed of two classes, one corresponding to a liability class and the other an unaffected complement (Fossati & Lenzenweger, Reference Fossati and Lenzenweger2009; Linscott et al. Reference Linscott, Allardyce and van Os2010). However, this evidence is also affected by significant psychometric, method and interpretive challenges (Maraun et al. Reference Maraun, Slaney and Goddyn2003; Linscott & van Os, Reference Linscott and van Os2010; Linscott, unpublished observations).

Tests of the psychosis-proneness–persistence–impairment model

Several types of evidence cannot be interpreted as supporting, or even consistent with, phenomenological continuity. The shape or structure of the distribution of PE in the general population depends substantially on structural continuity or discontinuity and so does not indicate phenomenological continuity. Moreover, the arbitrary nature of measurement, particularly of psychosis-proneness, means that simple distributions of scores do not necessarily reflect the true underlying distribution (Blanton & Jaccard, Reference Blanton and Jaccard2006).

If PE by definition occur independently of psychotic disorder and include subclinical experiences, it is tautological to argue that the greater prevalence of PE over disorder is evidence of phenomenological continuity; a difference could be explained by subclinical PE. In addition, given PE are neither necessary nor sufficient for the diagnosis of psychotic disorder (e.g. schizophrenia can be diagnosed in the absence of hallucinations and delusions, and the presence of hallucinations is not sufficient for the diagnosis of schizophrenia; APA, 2000), there is also no firm ground for predicting that the prevalence of PE is greater than that of psychotic disorder; an absence of difference could be attributed to diagnostic definitions. For the same reason, the prevalence of persistence over an interval may be greater than the incidence of psychotic disorder over that interval, but this is not required. However, if a narrower set of clinically relevant PE were observed to be more common than psychotic disorder, this difference could not be attributed to subclinical PE and so may be evidence consistent with phenomenological continuity (APA, 2000).

The best tests for phenomenological continuity derive from the proposition that PE arise from fundamental pathogenic mechanisms that also produce psychotic disorder. In other words, PE should generally behave like psychotic disorder itself or as if these are on the path to disorder. This proposition leads to hypotheses on the rates of PE in general population samples and relationships between PE and key risk factors (substance misuse, urbanicity, unemployment, marital status, trauma, ethnicity, migration, education, family history). In particular, the odds of PE should be greater among those exposed to factors known to predict psychotic disorder. Insofar as any of these risk factors distinguish among cohorts (e.g. urbanicity), these factors should also account for variability in PE across cohorts.

Persistence requires several outcomes. If PE are temporally continuous with psychotic disorder, PE should persist over time and should be associated with psychotic disorder outcomes. Second, given the probabilistic nature of the relationship, assuming other variables are equal (e.g. risk factors, measurement criteria), the rate of outcome should have a constant relationship with the rate of PE and the rate of persistence. By implication, the rate of persistence should have a constant relationship with the rate of PE.

Methodological considerations

In the 2007 review, rate estimates were based in part on data from self-report measures containing items that refer to both PE and dispositional phenomena (van Os et al. Reference van Os, Linscott, Myin-Germeys, Delespaul and Krabbendam2009). An important criticism of that review is that rates may have been inflated by inclusion of semantically related phenomena that would not normally count towards a diagnosis of psychotic disorder. In the systematic review reported here, we restricted our focus to rates obtained using (a) diagnostic or screening instruments administered in an interview format and (b) items from self-report instruments only if these refer to specific, happened, personally relevant events that are unlikely to be culturally accepted or to have reasonably probable realistic interpretations. The effects of assessment mode were also ascertained.

Method

Sample

We obtained the intersection of three sets of research papers published from 1950 to August 2010 and listed in Medline or PsycINFO: (a) entries containing any of the (truncated) keyword phrases ‘delus’, ‘hallucinat’, ‘paranoi’, ‘psychoses’, ‘psychosis’, ‘psychotic’, ‘schizophr’ or ‘schizotyp’; (b) entries containing one or more of ‘incidence’, ‘prevalence’, ‘sensitivity’ or ‘specificity’; and (c) entries containing ‘general population’, ‘normal population’, ‘normal individuals’, ‘normal sample’, ‘healthy population’, ‘healthy individuals’, ‘healthy sample’, ‘community individuals’, ‘community sample’, ‘nonpsychotic’, ‘survival’, ‘screening’ or ‘subclinical’. The intersection set contained 1925 records for human samples. We read the title of each paper and, as necessary, the abstract and the paper itself to find reports on the incidence or prevalence of hallucinations or delusions in general population samples. Papers were retained if they met the following criteria and information was sufficient to determine this was the case:

  1. (1) The paper described one or more studies of PE in general population samples.

  2. (2) The sample n available for analysis was at least 100.

  3. (3) The results included precise incidence or prevalence rates of dichotomous phenotype outcomes or count data or scores from which such rates could be derived.

  4. (4) Where rates were based on self-report, data came only from items that referred to specific, happened, personally relevant events (e.g. ‘Have you ever felt you were under the control of some special power?’ was included but ‘Do you ever feel as if you are under the control of some force or power other than yourself?’ was not because the latter includes the hypothetical qualifier ‘as if’ and offers an interpretation the individual may or may not have arrived at unaided), events unlikely to be culturally accepted (e.g. ‘Do you believe in the power of witchcraft, voodoo or the occult?’ was excluded because the item describes the beliefs of a significant cultural subgroup), and events that do not have reasonably probable non-pathological interpretations (e.g. ‘Have you ever known what another person was thinking even though that person wasn't speaking?’ was excluded because non-verbal communication has this effect; Hays et al. Reference Hays, Niven, Godfrey and Linscott2004). Item coding is reported in the Supplementary Online Material.

  5. (5) Outcome indices did not conflate PE with non-PE phenotypes, such as affective or dissociative phenotypes, or with sleep-related PE.

  6. (6) Participants were not recruited through secondary or tertiary health services, prisons or aged-care facilities.

  7. (7) Psychosis in late life seems to have a somewhat different risk profile compared to psychosis earlier in the life course (Howard et al. Reference Howard, Rabins, Seeman and Jeste2000; Ropacki & Jeste, Reference Ropacki and Jeste2005; Köhler et al. Reference Köhler, van Os, de Graaf, Vollebergh, Verhey and Krabbendam2007) and may also have different persistence outcomes in the context of late-life neurological conditions such as Alzheimer's disease (Ropacki & Jeste, Reference Ropacki and Jeste2005). Therefore, a simple age-related inclusion criterion was applied. To strike a balance between excluding too many studies by use of an overly conservative criterion (e.g. no participants aged >65 years), we applied the more liberal criterion that at least 80% of the sample was <65 years.

We searched among citations in papers meeting these criteria. We included papers provided directly by authors (although there was no systematic enquiry of authors) and pre-prints of in-press publications that came to our attention.

Measures

For each observed rate, we recorded the name and attributes of the research cohort (sampling population, whether the sampling population was a whole nation, recruitment method, response rate, age, proportion of males, proportion 65 years or older, important inclusion and exclusion criteria), assessment (construct, instrument names, assessment mode, number of items, reference time-frame, endorsement thresholds and exclusion criteria including graded thresholds of severity or frequency, the ratio of hallucination to delusion items) and data handling (weighting correcting for sampling design, mean rate versus any endorsement, the denominator). Occasionally, different reports on the same cohort using the same or very similar methods contained different observed rates. In such cases, all rates were recorded.

For each cohort we determined the degree of geographic dispersal and population density of the sampling population using two sources (accessed February 2011): www.wikipedia.org (Wikimedia Foundation, USA) and www.fallingrain.com (Falling Rain Genomics Inc., USA). If the sampling population was a single city, dispersal was recorded as zero and density was that of the city. Otherwise, dispersal was the standard deviation (s.d.) of coordinates for multiple city studies or the s.d. of the geographical centre and most populous city for whole country studies; and density was the minimum estimated density for the sampling population.

Analyses

Saha et al.'s (Reference Saha, Chant and McGrath2008) graphical analysis was used to summarize rate data. This approach captures the variability in observed rates and allows inclusion of all rates in the results. However, a disadvantage of this approach is that if a method characteristic predicts both observed rates and the number of rates reported for each cohort, including all rates from a cohort could alter the observed variability. Therefore, we also used Monte Carlo permutation sampling (MCPS) to find what would have been observed had only one rate per cohort been reported. Specifically, in each of 10 000 permutations (5000 in the case of incidence rates), one rate was randomly selected for each multi-rate cohort and combined with rates from single-rate cohorts. The median rate×cumulative relative frequency curve and the observed 95% margins were then obtained. Observed margins were loess smoothed in R (R Development Core Team, 2004). Statistics obtained using MCPS have an MC subscript.

Associations between risk factors and rates were estimated in two ways. First, odds ratios (ORs) and relative risk (RR) for univariate exposures, and associated confidence intervals (CIs), were recorded or derived from counts or rates. If there were multiple ratios for the same exposure (e.g. male versus female for definite and probable PE; or urban versus rural and urban versus semi-rural), all were recorded. Ratios for exposure interactions (e.g. sex by age) were not recorded. Then, weighted meta-analytic estimates of ORs were obtained using metan in Stata v. 10.1 (Stata Corporation, USA). Where multiple ORs were available, the most adjusted estimate was used. If multiple ORs corresponded to different conditions for the same exposure variable, the median OR was obtained by taking the inverse log of the median of the log-transformed rates. RR was used as a substitute for OR if the latter was not available, the reported rate was <10% and substitution did not significantly alter the outcome.

Second, we estimated between-cohort associations of prevalence with exposures and method variables using MCPS (10 000 permutations, one rate per cohort). Point-biserial r was calculated for dichotomous variables, Pearson's r for arcsine-transformed proportions and Spearman's ρ for other data types. Population density was log transformed before analysis. Mean coefficients, exact 95% margins and the proportion of coefficients falling away from zero were obtained.

Results

Reports that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (n=95) contained 411 prevalence and 35 incidence rates from 61 participant cohorts (Table 1). The median numbers of rates per report and per cohort were 3 and 4 respectively, and the maximum, 38 and 46 respectively. Fifty per cent of rates came from nine (15%) cohorts. Incidence data were available for six cohorts only. Reported prevalence rates ranged from 0 to 0.715 (Fig. 1). Annual incidence rates ranged from 0.001 to 0.187. Table 2 gives percentiles and quartiles of reported rates.

Fig. 1. Cumulative relative frequency plots. (a) Plots for all reported prevalence and annual incidence rates for hallucinations (n=121, n=8), delusions (n=103, n=7) and commingled hallucinations or delusions (n=187, n=20). (b) Plots obtained with Monte Carlo permutation sampling (MCPS) of rates, for the prevalence of all psychotic experiences (PE) (i.e. hallucinations, delusions and commingled hallucinations or delusions; n=61 cohorts), the incidence of all PE (n=6 cohorts), and the prevalence of hallucinations (n=49 cohorts) and delusions only (n=43 cohorts).

Table 1. Cohorts and data sources identified and included in the review

D, Delusion; H, hallucination; H/D, undifferentiated; I, (annual) incidence; P, prevalence.

Table 2. Prevalence and annual incidence percentiles and quartiles

PE, Psychotic experiences.

a Derived from Monte Carlo permutation sampling (MCPS).

b Derived using all observed rates.

Is PE more prevalent than psychotic disorder?

The most robust estimate of the prevalence of psychotic disorder in the general population comes from a comprehensive national interview survey of Finland in 2000 (Perälä et al. Reference Perälä, Suvisaari, Saarni, Kuoppasalmi, Isometsä, Pirkola, Partonen, Tuulio-Henriksson, Hintikka, Kieseppä, Härkänen, Koskinen and Lönnqvist2007). In this survey, the lifetime prevalence in the consenting general population aged >29 years was reported to be 0.0299. This rate included all non-affective psychoses, affective psychoses with psychotic features, substance-induced psychoses, and psychoses due to a general medical condition.

In comparison, the median lifetime prevalence of interview-assessed PE (MdnMC) was 0.0534 (n=17 cohorts); the observed proportion of medians below 0.0299 was p=0.043. Four of the 17 cohorts in this subset were of children or adolescents. For the remaining 13 cohorts, most of which had age ranges spanning from the late teens through to beyond 55 years, MdnMC was 0.0526 (p=0.050). Widening the range of cohorts to include both interview and self-report rates, regardless of age, gave an MdnMC of 0.0873 (p<0.001, n=30 cohorts).

What method variables account for variance in observed prevalence rates?

Table 3 shows correlations between method variables and prevalence rates. Rates were lower where PE were assessed with interviews, samples were larger, the sampling population was a whole nation or was dispersed, inconsequential PE were not counted, or there were higher grading or item endorsement thresholds. Higher rates were reported from convenience samples and self-report studies.

Table 3. Associations between cohort variables and observed rates obtained with interview, self-report, or all methods

CI, Confidence interval; r MC, correlation coefficient derived using Monte Carlo permutation sampling (MCPS).

Of all the method variables, the distinction between interview and no-interview methodologies accounted for the greatest proportion of observed variance in rates, 19.7%. When separated into interview (i.e. researchers used interview with or without other assessment methods) and self-report (i.e. researchers used self-report methods only) subsamples, the median estimates of prevalence of PE were 0.038 and 0.119 respectively. Moreover, the distributions of observed rates were almost entirely non-overlapping (Fig. 2). When separate MCPS analyses were conducted for interview and self-report studies, different relationships with method variables emerged (Table 3).

Fig. 2. Cumulative relative frequencies of prevalence rates for psychotic experiences (PE) measured with self-report questionnaires (n=28 cohorts) or lay or professional interviews (n=34 cohorts). Frequency distributions were obtained using Monte Carlo permutation sampling (MCPS). Shaded regions are loess-smoothed intervals within which 95% of observations fell. In these confidence intervals (CIs), non-overlapping areas comprised 97.7% to 99.4% of the total CI area (smoothed or unsmoothed).

What is the nature of the relationship between PE and risk factors?

PE was more common among younger individuals, members of ethnic minorities, the lower paid, and the unmarried (Table 4). PE occurred in association with misuse (or the degree of misuse) of alcohol, cannabis and other recreational drugs, and with exposure to stressful or traumatic events. Family history of mental illness was among the most potent of risk factors. By contrast, and somewhat unexpectedly, there was no evidence that education, unemployment or urbanicity predicted PE.

Table 4. Meta-analytic estimates of odds of PE given exposure variable

PE, Psychotic experiences; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; I 2, percentage of variance in OR estimates reflecting inconsistency across studies (Higgins et al. Reference Higgins, Thompson, Deeks and Altman2003); r, Pearson's tetrachoric approximation (Bonett, Reference Bonett2007).

* p<0.05

** p<0.01.

However, heterogeneity (I 2) affected many of these analyses (Table 4). Notably, ORs for education and unemployment from the third National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity in Great Britain (NSPMGB-III; Freeman et al. Reference Freeman, McManus, Brugha, Meltzer, Jenkins and Bebbington2011) were inconsistent with ORs from other cohorts. When these were removed, the meta-analytic ORs for education (reference=less) and unemployment were 0.77 (95% CI 0.67–0.89) and 1.56 (95% CI 1.27–1.91) respectively, and the heterogeneity decreased (I 2=0% and 18% respectively). I 2 for urbanicity decreased from 91% to 0% when reanalysed without the NSPMGB-III and Groningen cohorts (Bartels-Velthuis et al. Reference Bartels-Velthuis, Jenner, van de Willige, van Os and Wiersma2010), giving an OR of 1.24 (95% CI 1.16–1.32). I 2 for cannabis decreased to 18% without data from the Izmir cohort (Binbay et al. Reference Binbay, Drukker, Elbi, Tanık, Özkınay, Onay, Zağlı, van Os and Alptekin2011), which yielded unusually high odds. I 2 for migrant status decreased from 98% to 0% with the removal of the Mexican American cohort (Vega et al. Reference Vega, Sribney, Miskimen, Escobar and Aguilar-Gaxiola2006), giving an OR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.02–1.40). I 2 for family history decreased to 8% without a very high OR from the Narlidere–Balcova cohort (Alptekin et al. Reference Alptekin, Ulas, Akdede, Tümüklü and Akvardar2009), leaving an OR of 2.39 (95% CI 1.85–3.07). Heterogeneity affecting estimates for age and stress or trauma was not attributable to any single cohort.

MCPS showed that lower cohort age and higher cohort population density were strongly correlated with higher cohort prevalence rates (Table 3). However, when performed separately for interview and self-report rates, age was not related to prevalence. The association with urbanicity seemed to survive despite the mode of assessment, although the evidence was marginal (p=0.067).

What is the rate of psychotic disorder outcome associated with PE?

Authors' definitions of psychotic disorder outcomes were accepted at face value. Eight estimates of the prevalence of psychotic disorder outcomes were obtained from five reports on analysis of three cohorts: none in the Zuid-Holland cohort (Dhossche et al. Reference Dhossche, Ferdinand, van der Ende, Hofstra and Verhulst2002) developed a psychotic disorder during an 8-year interval (n=2 rates). The prevalence of disorder outcomes for the cohort from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study (DMHDS; Poulton et al. Reference Poulton, Caspi, Moffitt, Cannon, Murray and Harrington2000) was 0.033 over 15 years (n=2). The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS; Krabbendam et al. Reference Krabbendam, Myin-Germeys, Hanssen, Bijl, de Graaf, Vollebergh, Bak and van Os2004, Reference Krabbendam, Myin-Germeys, Hanssen, de Graaf, Vollebergh, Bak and van Os2005; Hanssen et al. Reference Hanssen, Bak, Bijl, Vollebergh and van Os2005) generated estimates from 0.003 over 2 years to 0.008 over 3 years, with a median rate of 0.005 (n=4). The conditional probabilities of psychotic disorder given baseline PE ranged from 0.000 to 0.250 (n=8), with a mean value of 0.074 (Fig. 3). Given the small n, caution is warranted when interpreting the evidence that follows.

Fig. 3. The conditional probabilities of (a) psychotic disorder outcome and (b) persistence of psychotic experiences (PE) given baseline PE. Circles indicate any observation; squares, median observation per cohort. Plot symbol size is proportional to latency between baseline and follow-up (range 1–15 years); lines indicate least-squares regression line (solid) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) (dashed).

There was no evidence that disorder outcomes were associated with baseline prevalence of PE, with r=0.34 for all observations (p=0.41, df=6) and r=0.90 for medians per cohort (p=0.290, df=1). Furthermore, conditional probabilities were not correlated with baseline PE, with r=−0.13 for all observations (p=0.757, df=6) and r=0.97 for medians per cohort (p=0.161, df=1). Visual inspection of the relationship (Fig. 3) suggests that, within cohorts, narrower definitions of PE give higher conditional probabilities.

What proportion experience persistent PE?

Persistence was defined as the proportion of people who, having met some threshold for PE during a baseline assessment, met the same threshold for PE at some later point in time. Nine estimates of persistence were obtained from six reports based on four cohorts and intervals spanning 1–8 years (Dhossche et al. Reference Dhossche, Ferdinand, van der Ende, Hofstra and Verhulst2002; Hanssen et al. Reference Hanssen, Bak, Bijl, Vollebergh and van Os2005; Wiles et al. Reference Wiles, Zammit, Bebbington, Singleton, Meltzer and Lewis2006; Cougnard et al. Reference Cougnard, Marcelis, Myin-Germeys, de Graaf, Vollebergh, Krabbendam, Lieb, Wittchen, Henquet, Spauwen and van Os2007; Dominguez et al. Reference Dominguez, Wichers, Lieb, Wittchen and van Os2011; van Rossum et al. Reference van Rossum, Dominguez, Lieb, Wittchen and van Os2011). The prevalence of persistent PE ranged from 0.001 to 0.072, with median rates of 0.024 (n=9 rates) and 0.032 (n=4 cohorts). The comparable median estimates of incident PE from the same cohorts for the same periods were 0.035 (n=9 rates) and 0.035 (n=4 cohorts). Conditional probabilities of persistence given baseline PE ranged from 0.063 to 0.315 (median=0.211; Fig. 3). The small n indicates caution is again warranted.

Rates of persistent PE were correlated with baseline PE, with r=0.99 for all observations (p<0.001, df=7) and r=0.99 for medians per cohort (p=0.013, df=2). The conditional probability of persistence was correlated with baseline PE, with r=0.92 for all observations (p<0.001, df=7) but r=0.95 for medians per cohort (p=0.054, df=2). The latter suggest that, given any particular cohort, the conditional probability of persistence will be approximately 145% of baseline prevalence (e.g. if baseline prevalence=0.07, persistent PE occurs in ∼10% of those with baseline PE).

Persistence was not predicted by the latency between baseline and follow-up or cohort age. Predictors of persistence identified by others included higher levels of affective disturbance (van Rossum et al. Reference van Rossum, Dominguez, Lieb, Wittchen and van Os2011) and exposure to environmental stressors, including cannabis, stress and urbanicity (Cougnard et al. Reference Cougnard, Marcelis, Myin-Germeys, de Graaf, Vollebergh, Krabbendam, Lieb, Wittchen, Henquet, Spauwen and van Os2007).

Discussion

Among the numerous studies of PE in general population samples, the median estimated prevalence of PE is 7.2% and the annual incidence is 2.5%. The rate of PE is significantly greater than the comparable rate of psychotic disorder (Perälä et al. Reference Perälä, Suvisaari, Saarni, Kuoppasalmi, Isometsä, Pirkola, Partonen, Tuulio-Henriksson, Hintikka, Kieseppä, Härkänen, Koskinen and Lönnqvist2007). Crucially, PE seemed to behave a lot like psychotic disorder. The risk of PE was greater among younger individuals, ethnic minority and migrant groups, the lower paid, the less educated, the unemployed, and those who were not married. Exposure to alcohol, cannabis, other recreational drugs, stressful or traumatic events, greater urbanicity and family history of mental illness predicted greater risk of PE. Urbanicity accounted for significant between-cohort variation in PE. Method variables also contributed significantly to the variability in observed rates, particularly mode of assessment. Studies based on self-report generated rates more than three times greater (in absolute terms, 0.081 higher) than rates obtained from interview-based assessments.

PE were transient for nearly 80% of affected individuals and persisted in only a minority of cases. Of those with baseline PE, 7.4% developed a psychotic disorder outcome. Contrary to expectation, there was no evidence that disorder outcome was constantly related to baseline PE across samples. Explanations for our failure to find evidence may include the very limited statistical power of the analyses and, as suggested by one reviewer, differences in methods of classification of disorder across studies and geographical regions. By contrast, the conditional probability of persistence was constantly related to the rate of PE within the population.

In sum, the findings provide good support for the phenomenological and temporal continuity of PE. PE behave like psychotic disorders, and schizophrenia in particular, PE persist over time, and persistence seems to have a probabilistic and constant relationship with baseline PE. Thus, key propositions of the psychosis-proneness–persistence–impairment model seem sound. However, the evidence also contains significant limitations that constrain confidence in this interpretation.

First, in prospective epidemiological research, persistence is operationalized imprecisely. Imprecision is a function of both the length of follow-up intervals and the design of assessment instruments. Consequently, those who experience continuous PE during baseline and follow-up intervals, those who experience significant periods of remission during the follow-up interval, and those who have PE at baseline and then experience full remission of PE for the remainder of the follow-up interval are all classed as experiencing persistent PE.

Second, the rates of persistent and incident PE over an interval were markedly similar (MdnMC=0.032 and 0.035 respectively). This may indicate that there are fundamentally different course profiles of PE experience. Indeed, the length of the follow-up interval was not significantly associated with either persistent or new-onset PE (r=−0.30 and r=−0.13 respectively). However, it is unclear from the available research to what degree rates of persistent and new-onset PE are a product of research design. Several design variables may contribute: the a priori definition of, or threshold for, persistence; item wording that imposes a duration or frequency criterion on PE (e.g. ever versus sometimes); and the length of the follow-up interval. Importantly, the absence of a significant correlation between persistence interval and rate of persistence does not constitute evidence that these are unrelated as the power of the test was only 0.09.

Other limitations include the fact that, unlike self-report data, interview data were not limited to those reflecting specific, happened, personally relevant events, etc. Persistence and disorder outcome results rest on very small samples of cohorts, and the reliability of extraction of rates and odds from articles was not examined.

Given these limits, the evidence and tests reported here are not sufficient bases for rejecting competing discontinuity models. For the same reasons, it is important to consider what would be required to reject a continuity model or at least to provide a more rigorous test of it. Defensible definitions of persistence are required, along with clarification of what constitutes remission and recurrence of PE. If a high threshold definition is used (e.g. continuously experienced, vis-à-vis continually, intermittently), persistence may be found to be exceedingly rare. Integration of survey with other research designs is also crucial. Whereas surveys can detect intermittent persistence, continuous or continual PE would be better examined in experience sampling designs. Phenomenological continuity would be discounted if the causal mechanism of PE in one group of individuals differed from that giving rise to PE in another. The groups may align conveniently with the threshold for psychotic disorder, although, given the way such thresholds are determined, that seems unlikely. Equally, clear epidemiological evidence on the proximal causal mechanism in the general population would strengthen support for continuity.

It is important to justify our reliance on, and integration of, self-report and interview data in this review. There are several reasons why we did not restrict the review to just one assessment methodology, such as interview-based assessment. First, self-report and clinical interviews each introduce different types of systematic variance into the assessment of psychotic experiences. For example, there is some evidence that interview methodologies are less sensitive to heritability variance than self-report methodologies (Kendler et al. Reference Kendler, Myers, Torgersen, Neale and Reichborn-Kjennerud2007). This may be in part because of the role that observer-interviewers have on filtering information from respondents (Linscott & van Os, Reference Linscott and van Os2010). However, response biases may affect self-report. By including both forms of assessment in the review, it has been possible to capture and describe that variance and to obtain findings that may be generalized beyond the one methodology. Second, it is not clear which assessment method is better. Interview-based assessments are not any more valid or reliable than self-report assessments. The lower rate of PE in general population samples obtained from interview-based measures does not mean that the interview rate is more accurate. Self-report instruments have been shown to accurately predict interview-ascertained PE (Kelleher et al. Reference Kelleher, Harley, Murtagh and Cannon2011). Third, many of the interview-based rates were obtained from lay-trained research assistants using the CIDI or similar diagnostic interviews. The CIDI functions much like a self-report instrument would if item content were delivered orally and responses were audio recorded. In other words, the interview–self-report dichotomy is not necessarily sound. Finally, research evidence suggests that self-reported PE, even when not verified by clinical interview, are predictive of psychosis and other clinical outcomes (van Nierop et al. 2011; Kaymaz et al. Reference Kaymaz, Drukker, Lieb, Wittchen, Werbeloff, Weiser, Lataster and van Os2012).

Continuity between PE and psychotic disorder has several clinical implications (cf. Lawrie et al. Reference Lawrie, Hall, McIntosh, Owens and Johnstone2010). Evidence of continuity should not imply that categorical diagnosis or systems should be abandoned. Nevertheless, for many, the experience of psychosis is not associated with disability or need for care. Greater understanding of the nexus between PE and dysfunction, and careful maintenance of distinction between these, is warranted and may aid identification of alternative intervention targets. Intervention targets may also emerge from a better understanding of what it is that protects some from developing dysfunction despite PE.

In communication with patients, a shift in emphasis from disorder class towards symptomatology and dysfunction would be consistent with the continuity theory and have several clinical benefits. The tautology inherent in diagnosis of psychotic disorders, which arises from the descriptive vis-à-vis explanatory nature of psychiatric diagnosis, would be avoided while still providing patients the reassurance they derive from knowing what is going on. Emphasis on symptomatology would reduced the risk of stigmatization and facilitate the identification of proximal antecedents of distress, thereby providing a more salient, amenable target for monitoring and intervention.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291712001626.

Declaration of Interest

None.

References

Aleman, A, Nieuwenstein, MR, Böcker, KBE, De Haan, EHF (2001). Multi-dimensionality of hallucinatory predisposition: factor structure of the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale in a normal sample. Personality and Individual Differences 30, 287292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alptekin, K, Ulas, H, Akdede, BB, Tümüklü, M, Akvardar, Y (2009). Prevalence and risk factors of psychotic symptoms: in the city of Izmir, Turkey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 44, 905910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
APA (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV-TR. American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Armando, M, Nelson, B, Yung, AR, Ross, M, Birchwood, M, Girardi, P, Fiori Nastro, P (2010). Psychotic-like experiences and correlation with distress and depressive symptoms in a community sample of adolescents and young adults. Schizophrenia Research 119, 258265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arseneault, L, Cannon, M, Poulton, R, Murray, R, Caspi, A, Moffitt, TE (2002). Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study. British Medical Journal 325, 12121213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bak, M, Myin-Germeys, I, Delespaul, P, Vollebergh, W, de Graaf, R, van Os, J (2005). Do different psychotic experiences differentially predict need for care in the general population? Comprehensive Psychiatry 46, 192199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, TR, Etheridge, JB (1992). Verbal hallucinations in normals, I: People who hear ‘voices’. Applied Cognitive Psychology 6, 379387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels-Velthuis, AA, Jenner, JA, van de Willige, G, van Os, J, Wiersma, D (2010). Prevalence and correlates of auditory vocal hallucinations in middle childhood. British Journal of Psychiatry 196, 4146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentall, RP, Slade, PD (1985). Reliability of a scale measuring disposition towards hallucination: a brief report. Personality and Individual Differences 6, 527529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binbay, T, Drukker, M, Elbi, H, Tanık, FA, Özkınay, F, Onay, H, Zağlı, N, van Os, J, Alptekin, K (2011). Testing the psychosis continuum: differential impact of genetic and non-genetic risk factors and comorbid psychopathology across the entire spectrum of psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin. Published online: 27 April 2011. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbr003.Google Scholar
Blanton, H, Jaccard, J (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist 61, 2741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonett, DG (2007). Transforming odds ratios into correlations for meta-analytic research. American Psychologist 62, 254255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brugha, T, Singleton, N, Meltzer, H, Bebbington, P, Farrell, M, Jenkins, R, Coid, J, Fryers, T, Melzer, D, Lewis, G (2005). Psychosis in the community and in prisons: a report from the British National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity. American Journal of Psychiatry 162, 774780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cougnard, A, Marcelis, M, Myin-Germeys, I, de Graaf, R, Vollebergh, W, Krabbendam, L, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, Henquet, C, Spauwen, J, van Os, J (2007). Does normal developmental expression of psychosis combine with environmental risk to cause persistence of psychosis? A psychosis proneness–persistence model. Psychological Medicine 37, 513527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Degenhardt, L, Hall, W (2001). The association between psychosis and problematic drug use among Australian adults: findings from the National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Psychological Medicine 31, 659668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dhossche, D, Ferdinand, R, van der Ende, J, Hofstra, MB, Verhulst, F (2002). Diagnostic outcome of self-reported hallucinations in a community sample of adolescents. Psychological Medicine 32, 619627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diop, B, Collingnon, R, Guèye, M, Harding, TW (1982). Diagnosis and symptoms of mental disorder in a rural area of Senegal. African Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences 11, 95103.Google Scholar
Dominguez, MdG, Saka, MC, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, van Os, J (2010). Early expression of negative/disorganized symptoms predicting psychotic experiences and subsequent clinical psychosis: a 10-year study. American Journal of Psychiatry 167, 10751082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominguez, MdG, Wichers, M, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, van Os, J (2011). Evidence that onset of clinical psychosis is an outcome of progressively more persistent subclinical psychotic experiences: an 8-year cohort study. Schizophrenia Bulletin 37, 8493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaton, WW, Romanoski, A, Anthony, JC, Nestadt, G (1991). Screening for psychosis in the general population with a self-report interview. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 179, 689693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellett, L, Lopes, B, Chadwick, P (2003). Paranoia in a nonclinical population of college students. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 191, 425430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferdinand, RF, van der Ende, J, Verhulst, FC (2004). Associations between visual and auditory hallucinations in children and adolescents, and tobacco use in adulthood. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 39, 514520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fergusson, DM, Horwood, LJ, Ridder, EM (2005). Tests of causal linkages between cannabis use and psychotic symptoms. Addiction 100, 354366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fergusson, DM, Horwood, LJ, Swain-Campbell, NR (2003). Cannabis dependence and psychotic symptoms in young people. Psychological Medicine 33, 1521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fonseca-Pedrero, E, Lemos Giraldez, S, Paino, M, Villazón García, Ú, Sierra Baigrie, S, Muñiz, J (2009). Attenuated psychotic experiences in adolescents. Papeles del Psicólogo 30, 6373.Google Scholar
Fossati, A, Lenzenweger, MF (2009). Natura facit saltus: discontinuities in the latent liability to schizophrenia and their implications for clinical psychiatry. Giornale Italiano di Psicopatologia 15, 219230.Google Scholar
Freeman, D, Brugha, T, Meltzer, H, Jenkins, R, Stahl, D, Bebbington, P (2010). Persecutory ideation and insomnia: findings from the second British National Survey of Psychiatric Morbidity. Journal of Psychiatic Research 44, 10211026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeman, D, Garety, PA, Bebbington, PE, Smith, B, Rollinson, R, Fowler, D, Kuipers, E, Katarzyna, R, Dunn, G (2005). Psychological investigation of the structure of paranoia in a non-clinical population. British Journal of Psychiatry 186, 427435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, D, McManus, S, Brugha, T, Meltzer, H, Jenkins, R, Bebbington, P (2011). Concomitants of paranoia in the general population. Psychological Medicine 41, 923936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gale, CK, Wells, JE, McGee, MA, Oakley-Browne, MA (2011). A latent class analysis of psychosis-like experiences in the New Zealand Mental Health Survey. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 124, 205213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galletly, C, van Hooff, M, McFarlane, A (2011). Psychotic symptoms in young adults exposed to childhood trauma – a 20 year follow-up study. Schizophrenia Research 127, 7682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanssen, M, Bak, M, Bijl, R, Vollebergh, W, van Os, J (2005). The incidence and outcome of subclinical psychotic experiences in the general population. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 44, 181191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanssen, MSS, Bijl, RV, Vollebergh, W, van Os, J (2003). Self-reported psychotic experiences in the general population: a valid screening tool for DSM-III-R psychotic disorders? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 107, 369377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hays, S-J, Niven, BE, Godfrey, HPD, Linscott, RJ (2004). Clinical assessment of pragmatic language impairment: a generalizability study of older people with Alzheimer's disease. Aphasiology 18, 693714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedelin, M, Löf, M, Olsson, M, Lewander, T, Nilsson, B, Hultman, CM, Weiderpass, E (2010). Dietary intake of fish, omega-3, omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin D and the prevalence of psychotic-like symptoms in a cohort of 33 000 women from the general population. BMC Psychiatry 10, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henquet, C, Krabbendam, L, Spauwen, J, Kaplan, C, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, van Os, J (2005). Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people. British Medical Journal 330, 1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal 327, 557560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horwood, J, Salvi, G, Thomas, K, Duffy, L, Gunnell, D, Hollis, C, Lewis, G, Menezes, P, Thompson, A, Wolke, D, Zammit, S, Harrison, G (2008). IQ and non-clinical psychotic symptoms in 12-year-olds: results from the ALSPAC birth cohort. British Journal of Psychiatry 193, 185191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, R, Rabins, PV, Seeman, MV, Jeste, DV, the International Late Onset Schizophrenia Group (2000). Late-onset schizophrenia and very-late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis: an international consensus. American Journal of Psychiatry 157, 172178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janssen, I, Hanssen, M, Bak, M, Bijl, RV, de Graaf, R, Vollebergh, W, McKenzie, K, van Os, J (2003). Discrimination and delusional ideation. British Journal of Psychiatry 182, 7176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janssen, I, Krabbendam, L, Bak, M, Hanssen, M, Vollebergh, W, de Graaf, R, van Os, J (2004). Childhood abuse as a risk factor for psychotic experiences. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 109, 3845.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johns, LC, Cannon, M, Singleton, N, Murray, RM, Farrell, M, Brugha, T, Bebbington, P, Jenkins, R, Meltzer, H (2004). Prevalence and correlates of self-reported psychotic symptoms in the British population. British Journal of Psychiatry 185, 298305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johns, LC, Nazroo, JY, Bebbington, P, Kuipers, E (2002). Occurrence of hallucinatory experiences in a community sample and ethnic variations. British Journal of Psychiatry 180, 174178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, LC, van Os, J (2001). The continuity of psychotic experiences in the general population. Clinical Psychology Review 21, 11251141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaymaz, N, Drukker, M, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, Werbeloff, N, Weiser, M, Lataster, T, van Os, J (in press). Do subthreshold psychotic experiences predict clinical outcomes in unselected non-help-seeking population-based samples? A systematic review and meta-analysis, enriched with new results. Psychological Medicine.Google Scholar
Kaymaz, N, van Os, J, de Graaf, R, ten Have, M, Nolen, W, Krabbendam, L (2007). The impact of subclinical psychosis on the transition from subclinical mania to bipolar disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders 98, 5564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelleher, I, Harley, M, Murtagh, A, Cannon, M (2011). Are screening instruments valid for psychotic-like experiences? A validation study of screening questions for psychotic-like experiences using in-depth clinical interview. Schizophrenia Bulletin 37, 362369.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, KS, Gallagher, TJ, Ableson, JM, Kessler, RC (1996). Lifetime prevalence, demographic risk factors, and diagnostic validity of nonaffective psychosis as assessed in a US community sample. The National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry 53, 10221031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendler, KS, Myers, J, Torgersen, S, Neale, MC, Reichborn-Kjennerud, T (2007). The heritability of cluster A personality disorders assessed by both personal interview and questionnaire. Psychological Medicine 37, 655665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, RC, Birnbaum, H, Demler, O, Falloon, IRH, Gagnon, E, Guyer, M, Howes, MJ, Kendler, KS, Shi, L, Walters, E, Wu, EQ (2005). The prevalence and correlates of nonaffective psychosis in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Biological Psychiatry 58, 668676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinoshita, Y, Shimodera, S, Nishida, A, Kinoshita, K, Watanabe, N, Oshima, N, Akechi, T, Sasaki, T, Inoue, S, Furukawa, TA, Okazaki, Y (2011). Psychotic-like experiences are associated with violent behavior in adolescents. Schizophrenia Research 126, 245251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Köhler, S, van Os, J, de Graaf, R, Vollebergh, W, Verhey, F, Krabbendam, L (2007). Psychosis risk as a function of age at onset: a comparison between early- and late-onset psychosis in a general population sample. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 42, 288294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krabbendam, L, Janssen, I, Bak, M, Bijl, RV, de Graaf, R, van Os, J (2002). Neuroticism and low self-esteem as risk factors for psychosis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 37, 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krabbendam, L, Myin-Germeys, I, Hanssen, M, Bijl, RV, de Graaf, R, Vollebergh, W, Bak, M, van Os, J (2004). Hallucinatory experiences and onset of psychotic disorder: evidence that the risk is mediated by delusion formation. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 110, 264272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krabbendam, L, Myin-Germeys, I, Hanssen, M, de Graaf, R, Vollebergh, W, Bak, M, van Os, J (2005). Development of depressed mood predicts onset of psychotic disorder in individuals who report hallucinatory experiences. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 44, 113125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larøi, F, Marczewski, P, van der Linden, M (2004). Further evidence of the multi-dimensionality of hallucinatory predisposition: factor structure of a modified version of the Launay-Slade Hallucinations Scale in a normal sample. European Psychiatry 19, 1520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larøi, F, van der Linden, M (2005). Nonclinical participants' reports of hallucinatory experiences. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 37, 3343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lataster, T, Myin-Germeys, I, Derom, C, Thiery, E, van Os, J (2009). Evidence that self-reported psychotic experiences represent the transitory developmental expression of genetic liability to psychosis in the general population. American Journal of Medical Genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric Genetics 150B, 10781084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lataster, T, van Os, J, Drukker, M, Henquet, C, Feron, F, Gunther, N, Myin-Germeys, I (2006). Childhood victimisation and developmental expression of non-clinical delusional ideation and hallucinatory experiences: victimisation and non-clinical psychotic experiences. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 41, 423428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laurens, KR, Hodgins, S, Maughan, B, Murray, RM, Rutter, ML, Taylor, EA (2006). Community screening for psychotic-like experiences and other putative antecedents of schizophrenia in children aged 9–12 years. Schizophrenia Research 90, 130146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrie, SM, Hall, J, McIntosh, AM, Owens, DGC, Johnstone, EC (2010). The ‘continuum of psychosis’: scientifically unproven and clinically impractical. British Journal of Psychiatry 197, 423425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lincoln, TM, Keller, E, Rief, W (2009). An assessment of delusional ideation and hallucination in the general population: German adaptations of the Peters et al. Delusions Inventory (PDI) and the Launay-Slade Hallucination Scale (LSHS-R) [in German]. Diagnostica 55, 2940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Líndal, E, Stefánsson, JG, Stefánsson, SB (1994). The qualitative difference of visions and visual hallucinations: a comparison of a general-population and clinical sample. Comprehensive Psychiatry 35, 405408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Link, BG, Stueve, A, Phelan, J (1998). Psychotic symptoms and violent behaviors: probing the components of ‘threat/control-override’ symptoms. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 33 (Suppl. 1), S55S60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linscott, RJ, Allardyce, J, van Os, J (2010). Seeking verisimilitude in a class: a systematic review of evidence that the criterial clinical symptoms of schizophrenia are taxonic. Schizophrenia Bulletin 36, 811829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linscott, RJ, van Os, J (2010). Systematic reviews of categorical versus continuum models in psychosis: evidence for discontinuous subpopulations underlying a psychometric continuum. Implications for DSM-V, DSM-VI, and DSM-VII. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 6, 391419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
López-Ilundain, JM, Pérez-Nievas, F, Otero, M, Mata, I (2006). Peter's Delusions Inventory in Spanish general population: internal reliability, factor structure and association with demographic variables (dimensionality of delusional ideation). Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría 34, 94104.Google ScholarPubMed
Maraun, MD, Slaney, K, Goddyn, L (2003). An analysis of Meehl's MAXCOV-HITMAX procedure for the case of dichotomous indicators. Multivariate Behavioral Research 38, 81112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maric, N, Krabbendam, L, Vollebergh, W, de Graaf, R, van Os, J (2003). Sex differences in symptoms of psychosis in a non-selected, general population sample. Schizophrenia Research 63, 8995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, R, Williams, S, Poulton, R (2000). Hallucinations in nonpsychotic children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 39, 1213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGorry, PD, McFarlane, C, Patton, GC, Bell, R, Hibbert, ME, Jackson, HJ, Bowes, G (1995). The prevalence of prodromal features of schizophrenia in adolescence: a preliminary survey. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 92, 241249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meehl, PE (1990). Toward an integrated theory of schizotaxia, schizotypy, and schizophrenia. Journal of Personality Disorders 4, 199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohr, P, Csémy, L, Rodriguez, M, Čermák, J, Kawaciuková, R, Seifertova, D (2007). Prevalence of psychotic symptoms in the Czech metropolitan population. Psychiatrie 11 (Suppl.), 2225.Google Scholar
Mojtabai, R (2006). Psychotic-like experiences and interpersonal violence in the general population. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 41, 183190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, C, Fisher, H, Hutchinson, G, Kirkbride, J, Craig, TK, Morgan, K, Dazzan, P, Boydell, J, Doody, GA, Jones, PB, Murray, RM, Leff, J, Fearon, P (2009). Ethnicity, social disadvantage and psychotic-like experiences in a healthy population based sample. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 119, 226235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J, Shevlin, M, Adamson, G, Houston, JE (2010). Positive psychosis symptom structure in the general population: assessing dimensional consistency and continuity from ‘pathology’ to ‘normality’. Psychosis 2, 199209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishida, A, Sasaki, T, Nishimura, Y, Tanii, H, Hara, N, Inoue, K, Yamada, T, Takami, T, Shimodera, S, Itokawa, M, Asukai, N, Okazaki, Y (2010). Psychotic-like experiences are associated with suicidal feelings and deliberate self-harm behaviors in adolescents aged 12–15 years. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 121, 301307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishida, A, Tanii, H, Nishimura, Y, Kajiki, N, Inoue, K, Okada, M, Sasaki, T, Okazaki, Y (2008). Associations between psychotic-like experiences and mental health status and other psychopathologies among Japanese early teens. Schizophrenia Research 99, 125133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nuevo, R, Chatterji, S, Verdes, E, Naidoo, N, Arango, C, Ayuso-Mateos, JL (2012). The continuum of psychotic symptoms in the general population: a cross-national study. Schizophrenia Bulletin 38, 475485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohayon, MM, Schatzberg, AF (2002). Prevalence of depressive episodes with psychotic features in the general population. American Journal of Psychiatry 159, 18551861.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olfson, M, Lewis-Fernández, R, Weissman, MM, Feder, A, Gameroff, MJ, Pilowsky, D, Fuentes, M (2002). Psychotic symptoms in an urban general medicine practice. American Journal of Psychiatry 159, 14121419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olfson, M, Weissman, MM, Leon, AC, Farber, L, Sheehan, DV (1996). Psychotic symptoms in primary care. Journal of Family Practice 43, 481488.Google ScholarPubMed
Pearson, D, Smalley, M, Ainsworth, C, Cook, M, Boyle, J, Flury, S (2008). Auditory hallucinations in adolescent and adult students: implications for continuums and adult pathology following child abuse. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 196, 634638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perälä, J, Suvisaari, J, Saarni, SI, Kuoppasalmi, K, Isometsä, E, Pirkola, S, Partonen, T, Tuulio-Henriksson, A, Hintikka, J, Kieseppä, T, Härkänen, T, Koskinen, S, Lönnqvist, J (2007). Lifetime prevalence of psychotic and bipolar I disorders in a general population. Archives of General Psychiatry 64, 1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polanczyk, G, Moffitt, TE, Arseneault, L, Cannon, M, Ambler, A, Keefe, RSE, Houts, R, Odgers, CL, Caspi, A (2010). Etiological and clinical features of childhood psychotic symptoms: results from a birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry 67, 328338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posey, TB, Losch, ME (1983). Auditory hallucinations of hearing voices in 375 normal subjects. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 3, 99113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulton, R, Caspi, A, Moffitt, TE, Cannon, M, Murray, R, Harrington, H (2000). Children's self-reported psychotic symptoms and adult schizophreniform disorder: a 15-year longitudinal study. Archives of General Psychiatry 57, 10531058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team (2004). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Ross, CA, Joshi, S (1992). Schneiderian symptoms and childhood trauma in the general population. Comprehensive Psychiatry 33, 269273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ropacki, SA, Jeste, DV (2005). Epidemiology of and risk factors for psychosis of Alzheimer's disease: A review of 55 studies published from 1990 to 2003. American Journal of Psychiatry 162, 20222030.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rössler, W, Riecher-Rössler, A, Angst, J, Murray, R, Gamma, A, Eich, D, van Os, J, Gross, VA (2007). Psychotic experiences in the general population: a twenty-year prospective community study. Schizophrenia Research 92, 114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saha, S, Chant, D, McGrath, J (2008). Meta-analyses of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia: conceptual and methodological issues. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 17, 5561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saha, S, Scott, JG, Varghese, D, McGrath, JJ (2011). The association between general psychological distress and delusion-like experiences: a large population-based study. Schizophrenia Research 127, 246251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreier, A, Wolke, D, Thomas, K, Horwood, J, Hollis, C, Gunnell, D, Lewis, G, Thompson, A, Zammit, S, Duffy, L, Salvi, G, Harrison, G (2009). Prospective study of peer victimization in childhood and psychotic symptoms in a nonclinical population at age 12 years. Archives of General Psychiatry 66, 527536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, ME (1977). A study of reported hallucinations in a Southeastern county. Mental Health and Society 4, 344354.Google Scholar
Scott, J, Chant, D, Andrews, G, Martin, G, McGrath, J (2007). Association between trauma exposure and delusional experiences in a large community-based sample. British Journal of Psychiatry 190, 339343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J, Chant, D, Andrews, G, McGrath, J (2006). Psychotic-like experiences in the general community: the correlates of CIDI psychosis screen items in an Australian sample. Psychological Medicine 36, 231238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J, Martin, G, Bor, W, Sawyer, M, Clark, J, McGrath, J (2009). The prevalence and correlates of hallucinations in Australian adolescents: results from a national survey. Schizophrenia Research 107, 179185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, J, Welham, J, Martin, G, Bor, W, Najman, J, O'Callaghan, M, Williams, G, Aird, R, McGrath, J (2008). Demographic correlates of psychotic-like experiences in young Australian adults. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 118, 230237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shevlin, M, Murphy, J, Dorahy, MJ, Adamson, G (2007). The distribution of positive psychosis-like symptoms in the population: a latent class analysis of the National Comorbidity Survey. Schizophrenia Research 89, 101109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smeets, F, Lataster, T, Dominguez, MdG, Hommes, J, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, van Os, J (2012). Evidence that onset of psychosis in the population reflects early hallucinatory experiences that through environmental risks and affective dysregulation become complicated by delusions. Schizophrenia Bulletin 38, 531542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spauwen, J, Krabbendam, L, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, van Os, J (2003). Sex differences in psychosis: normal or pathological? Schizophrenia Research 62, 4549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spauwen, J, Krabbendam, L, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, van Os, J (2004 a). Does urbanicity shift the population expression of psychosis? Journal of Psychiatic Research 38, 613618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spauwen, J, Krabbendam, L, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, van Os, J (2004 b). Early maternal stress and health behaviours and offspring expression of psychosis in adolescence. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 110, 356364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spauwen, J, Krabbendam, L, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, van Os, J (2006). Evidence that the outcome of developmental expression of psychosis is worse for adolescents growing up in an urban environment. Psychological Medicine 36, 407415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stueve, A, Link, BG (1998). Gender differences in the relationship between mental illness and violence: evidence from a community-based epidemiological study in Israel. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 33 (Suppl. 1), S61S67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thewissen, V, Myin-Germeys, I, Bentall, R, de Graaf, R, Vollebergh, W, van Os, J (2005). Hearing impairment and psychosis revisited. Schizophrenia Research 76, 99103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thewissen, V, Myin-Germeys, I, Bentall, R, de Graaf, R, Vollebergh, W, van Os, J (2007). Instability in self-esteem and paranoia in a general population sample. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 42, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, K, Harrison, G, Zammit, S, Lewis, G, Horwood, J, Heron, J, Hollis, C, Wolke, D, Thompson, A, Gunnell, D (2009). Association of measures of fetal and childhood growth with non-clinical psychotic symptoms in 12-year-olds: the ALSPAC cohort. British Journal of Psychiatry 194, 521526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tien, AY (1991). Distributions of hallucinations in the population. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 26, 287292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tien, AY, Anthony, JC (1990). Epidemiological analysis of alcohol and drug use as risk factors for psychotic experiences. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 178, 473480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tien, AY, Eaton, WW (1992). Psychopathologic precursors and sociodemographic risk factors for the schizophrenia syndrome. Archives of General Psychiatry 49, 3746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van der Hoorn, A, Oldehinkel, AJ, Ormel, J, Bruggeman, R, Uiterwaal, CSPM, Burger, H (2010). Non-right-handedness and mental health problems among adolescents from the general population: The Trails Study. Laterality 15, 304316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanheusden, K, Mulder, CL, van der Ende, J, Selten, J-P, van Lenthe, FJ, Verhulst, FC, Mackenbach, JP (2008). Associations between ethnicity and self-reported hallucinations in a population sample of young adults in the Netherlands. Psychological Medicine 38, 10951102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Os, J, Bak, M, Hanssen, M, Bijl, RV, de Graaf, R, Verdoux, H (2002). Cannabis use and psychosis: a longitudinal population-based study. American Journal of Epidemiology 156, 319327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Os, J, Hanssen, M, Bijl, RV, Ravelli, A (2000). Strauss (1969) revisited: a psychosis continuum in the general population? Schizophrenia Research 45, 1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Os, J, Hanssen, M, Bijl, RV, Vollebergh, W (2001). Prevalence of psychotic disorder and community level of psychotic symptoms: an urban-rural comparison. Archives of General Psychiatry 58, 663668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Os, J, Linscott, RJ, Myin-Germeys, I, Delespaul, P, Krabbendam, L (2009). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychosis continuum: evidence for a psychosis proneness-persistence-impairment model of psychotic disorder. Psychological Medicine 39, 179195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Rossum, I, Dominguez, MdG, Lieb, R, Wittchen, H-U, van Os, J (2011). Affective dysregulation and reality distortion: a 10-year prospective study of their association and clinical relevance. Schizophrenia Bulletin 37, 561571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vega, WA, Sribney, WM, Miskimen, TM, Escobar, JI, Aguilar-Gaxiola, S (2006). Putative psychotic symptoms in the Mexican American population: prevalence and co-occurrence with psychiatric disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 194, 471477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiles, NJ, Zammit, S, Bebbington, P, Singleton, N, Meltzer, H, Lewis, G (2006). Self-reported psychotic symptoms in the general population: results from the longitudinal study of the British National Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. British Journal of Psychiatry 188, 519526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoshizumi, T, Murase, S, Honjo, S, Kaneko, H, Murakami, T (2004). Hallucinatory experiences in a community sample of Japanese children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 43, 10301036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yung, AR, Nelson, B, Baker, K, Buckby, JA, Baksheev, G, Cosgrave, EM (2009). Psychotic-like experiences in a community sample of adolescents: implications for the continuum model of psychosis and prediction of schizophrenia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychaitry 43, 118128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zammit, S, Horwood, J, Thompson, A, Thomas, K, Menezes, P, Gunnell, D, Hollis, C, Wolke, D, Lewis, G, Harrison, G (2008). Investigating if psychosis-like symptoms (PLIKS) are associated with family history of schizophrenia or paternal age in the ALSPAC birth cohort. Schizophrenia Research 104, 279286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Cumulative relative frequency plots. (a) Plots for all reported prevalence and annual incidence rates for hallucinations (n=121, n=8), delusions (n=103, n=7) and commingled hallucinations or delusions (n=187, n=20). (b) Plots obtained with Monte Carlo permutation sampling (MCPS) of rates, for the prevalence of all psychotic experiences (PE) (i.e. hallucinations, delusions and commingled hallucinations or delusions; n=61 cohorts), the incidence of all PE (n=6 cohorts), and the prevalence of hallucinations (n=49 cohorts) and delusions only (n=43 cohorts).

Figure 1

Table 1. Cohorts and data sources identified and included in the review

Figure 2

Table 2. Prevalence and annual incidence percentiles and quartiles

Figure 3

Table 3. Associations between cohort variables and observed rates obtained with interview, self-report, or all methods

Figure 4

Fig. 2. Cumulative relative frequencies of prevalence rates for psychotic experiences (PE) measured with self-report questionnaires (n=28 cohorts) or lay or professional interviews (n=34 cohorts). Frequency distributions were obtained using Monte Carlo permutation sampling (MCPS). Shaded regions are loess-smoothed intervals within which 95% of observations fell. In these confidence intervals (CIs), non-overlapping areas comprised 97.7% to 99.4% of the total CI area (smoothed or unsmoothed).

Figure 5

Table 4. Meta-analytic estimates of odds of PE given exposure variable

Figure 6

Fig. 3. The conditional probabilities of (a) psychotic disorder outcome and (b) persistence of psychotic experiences (PE) given baseline PE. Circles indicate any observation; squares, median observation per cohort. Plot symbol size is proportional to latency between baseline and follow-up (range 1–15 years); lines indicate least-squares regression line (solid) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) (dashed).

Supplementary material: File

Linscott supplementary material

Linscott supplementary material

Download Linscott supplementary material(File)
File 106.5 KB