Psychotic Experiences and Related Distress: A Cross-national Comparison and Network Analysis Based on 7141 Participants From 13 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychotic experiences (PEs) are common in the general population but do not necessarily reflect a risk status if they occur in relative isolation or are not distressing. Emerging evidence suggests that PEs might be experienced as more benign for individuals from collectivistic low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC) compared with individualistic high-income countries (HIC). The aim of this study was to determine whether: (1) self-reported PEs are less distressing in community samples from LAMIC than from HIC; (2) the network of PEs is significantly less connected in a sample from LAMIC than from HIC. Adults from 8 HIC (n = 4669) and 5 LAMIC (n = 2472) were compared. The lifetime frequency of PEs and related distress were assessed with the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences. We analyzed the associations of PEs with distress and country type. The interconnection of PEs was visualized by a network analysis and tested for differences in global connection strengths. The average endorsement rates of PEs were significantly higher in LAMIC than in HIC (χ2 = 1772.87, P < .01, Φcramer = 0.50). There was a universal positive correlation between higher frequency of PEs and more distress, but the distress levels controlled for frequency were significantly higher in HIC (R2 = 0.11; b = 0.26; SE = 0.01; T = 17.68; P < .001). Moreover, the network of PEs was significantly less connected in LAMIC (S = 0.40, P < .05). The findings indicate that PEs are of less clinical relevance in LAMIC compared with HIC. The universal use of current high-risk criteria might thus not be adequate without consideration of associated distress and cultural values.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".