Psychosis-like experiences and resilience: A systematic and critical review of the literature
Loading...
Links to Files
Date
2023-04-28
Type of Work
Department
Program
Citation of Original Publication
DeLuca, J. S., Rakhshan Rouhakhtar, P., Klaunig, M. J., Akouri-Shan, L., Jay, S. Y., Todd, T. L., Sarac, C., Andorko, N. D., Herrera, S. N., Dobbs, M. F., Bilgrami, Z. R., Kline, E., Brodsky, A., Jespersen, R., Landa, Y., Corcoran, C., & Schiffman, J. (2022). Psychosis-like experiences and resilience: A systematic and critical review of the literature. Psychological Services, 19(Suppl 1), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000585
Rights
©American Psychological Association, 2022. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000585.
Subjects
Abstract
Resilience research has documented the ability to cope with traumatic and stressful situations and/or retain functioning given certain risk factors in the context of psychosis. In this study, we conducted the first systematic review of the literature on psychosis-like experiences (PLEs) and resilience. Fifteen articles (from 11 unique study samples) from ten countries were included in this systematic review, with a total of 11,937 unique study participants. Inclusion criteria were broad, capturing a wide range of individuals with PLEs who have not yet experienced threshold psychosis, such as individuals in the general population with elevated self-reports of PLEs, as well as clinical groups diagnosed by clinician interviews (i.e., clinical- or ultra-high-risk for psychosis [CHR or UHR]). For this review, studies needed to include research aims and empirical research related to resilience, and use an established or author-defined measure of psychological and/or social resilience. Data reporting quality was assessed with the STROBE and PROGRESS guidelines. Study aims and measurement of key variables varied widely, and all studies were cross-sectional. In 73% of the studies, resilience was inversely associated with PLEs or psychosis risk status (e.g., CHR or UHR). Results related to specific resilience subscales were mixed. Author-defined resilience was typically related to internal/psychological resources. Future research, particularly longitudinal research involving multidimensional measurement of resilience (e.g., internal and external factors), along with well-defined theoretical models, are necessary before drawing firm conclusions on resilience and PLEs. We propose a dynamic, multifaceted, developmentally-appropriate, and culturally-sensitive model of resilience for future research.