Insight and Psychosis: Comparing the Perspectives of Patient, Entourage and Clinician
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The construct of insight in psychosis assumes congruence between patient and clinician views of the meaning of symptoms and experience. Current definitions and measures of insight do not give systematic attention to the impact of interpersonal, cultural and socio-economic contexts. AIMS: We hypothesized that socio-cultural factors influence insight in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: We tested this hypothesis through comparison of insight in 18 triads, each composed of a patient, a family member and a clinician. The sample consisted of patients who were first diagnosed with psychosis in the last two years, and who were either immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean Islands, or Canadian born. Insight was assessed by analysis of narratives collected from patients, family members and clinicians for a research project on the negotiation of treatment. Each narrative was scored for insight along multiple dimensions with the Extracted Insight Scale (EIS), developed for this project. RESULTS: There was a significant correlation of insight on the EIS between patients and family members (r= 0.51, p= 0.03) but not between patient and clinician or family and clinician. The mean levels of insight across the three groups were comparable. Qualitative analysis of the illness narratives suggested that insight was based on the meanings constructed around psychotic experiences and that the process of interpreting and attributing psychotic experiences reflected each person's cultural background, life experiences, and other social determinants, especially stigma. CONCLUSION: Forms of insight can occur in the context of discordance or disagreement with the clinician's opinion. We present a testable model of the sociocultural determinants of insight that can guide future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".