Traumatic events and psychotic experiences: a nationally representative study in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Most research exploring the link between traumatic events and psychotic experiences has focused on either Australia, Europe or North America. In this study, we expand the existing knowledge to Thailand and investigate the impact of the type and the number of traumatic events on psychotic experiences in Thailand. METHODS: We used data from the nationally representative 2013 Thai National Mental Health Survey (TNMHS), including questions on traumatic events and psychotic experiences. We regressed the lifetime experience of hallucinations or delusions against the following independent variables: the experience of any traumatic event during lifetime (dichotomous; hypothesis 1); the experience of either no traumatic event, one interpersonal, one unintentional or both interpersonal and unintentional traumatic events (categorical; hypothesis 2) and the number of traumatic events experienced during lifetime (categorical; hypothesis 3). We adjusted the regression models for sociodemographic indicators and psychiatric disorders, and considered survey weights. RESULTS: About 6% (95% confidence interval: 4.9-7.0) of the respondents stated that they had either hallucinatory or delusional experiences during their lifetime. The risk of reporting such experiences was more than doubled as high among respondents who had experienced at least one traumatic event during their lifetime than among those who had not yet experienced one, with higher risks for interpersonal or multiple traumatic events. Our results further indicated an increase in the risk of psychotic experiences as the number of traumatic events increased, with up to an eight-fold higher risk for people exposed to five or more traumatic events in their lifetime, compared to those with no traumatic events. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals reporting interpersonal or multiple traumatic events face much higher risk of psychotic experiences. Effective and widely accessible secondary prevention programmes for people having experienced interpersonal or multiple traumatic events constitute a key intervention option.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".