Beliefs about illness and their relationship with hopelessness, depression, insight and suicide attempts in schizophrenia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the negative appraisals of the illness may be related to suicidal thinking and behaviours in schizophrenia, this has been insufficiently studied. The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between schizophrenic patients' cognitions about their illness and past suicidal behaviours. The relationship between patients' beliefs about their illness with potential mediators of suicidal behaviours such as depressive symptoms, hopelessness and insight was also investigated. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A group of 60 patients diagnosed with schizophrenia according to ICD-10 criteria belonging to a follow-up study were assessed one year after their last psychiatric admission. Psychopathological variables were assessed by the Calgary Depression Scale, Beck Hopelessness Scale and the first three items of the Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder. The appraisals of the illness were assessed by the Personal Beliefs about Illness Questionnaire. RESULTS: Negative appraisals were associated with hopelessness and depressive symptoms. Negative expectations and stigma showed the strongest associations. Contrary to our expectations, this scale was not able to differentiate between patients with and without past suicidal behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Negative appraisals of the illness in patients with schizophrenia seem to have psychopathological consequences such as greater hopelessness and depression. Since these psychopathological features are linked to suicidal risk, the psychotherapeutic approach counteracting negative beliefs about the illness may reduce the risk of suicide.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".