Predicting the longitudinal effects of the family environment on prodromal symptoms and functioning in patients at-risk for psychosis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2010.01.017Get rights and content

Abstract

The current study examined the relationship between the family environment and symptoms and functioning over time in a group of adolescents and young adults at clinical high risk for psychosis (N = 63). The current study compared the ability of interview-based versus self-report ratings of the family environment to predict the severity of prodromal symptoms and functioning over time. The family environmental factors were measured by interviewer ratings of the Camberwell Family Interview (CFI), self-report questionnaires surveying the patient's perceptions of criticism and warmth, and parent reported perceptions of their own level of criticism and warmth. Patients living in a critical family environment, as measured by the CFI at baseline, exhibited significantly worse positive symptoms at a 6-month follow-up, relative to patients living in a low-key family environment. In terms of protective effects, warmth and an optimal level of family involvement interacted such that the two jointly predicted improved functioning at the 6-month follow-up. Overall, both interview-based and self-report ratings of the family environment were predictive of symptoms and functioning at follow-up; however patient's self-report ratings of criticism had stronger predictive power. These results suggest that the family environment should be a specific target of treatment for individuals at risk for psychosis.

Introduction

Schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis are chronic and seriously disabling disorders. Available drug treatments are palliative rather than curative and only address positive symptoms, with little or no effect on negative symptoms and functional impairment. In step with other chronic somatic illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease, researchers have shifted focus to early intervention and prevention. In the field of schizophrenia, this focus has generated an emergent body of research aimed at delaying or preventing fully psychotic symptoms from developing through the identification of the prodromal phase of illness. The prodrome to psychosis is characterized by attenuated psychotic symptoms and/or a family history of psychosis with functional deterioration (Yung and McGorry, 1996). Such “ultra high risk” (UHR) individuals have high rates of conversion to psychosis, ranging from 30–60% over approximately two years (Cannon et al., 2008, Miller et al., 2002). As the identification of UHR individuals improves, it is critical that studies focus on intervention-sensitive factors that mitigate the risk of conversion to psychosis.

Despite the strong contribution of genetics to the development of psychosis, adoption studies have highlighted that the family environment can also have a substantial impact on outcomes (Tienari et al., 2003, Tienari et al., 2006). Furthermore, Expressed Emotion (EE), a measure of the family environment, is the strongest psychosocial predictor of clinical and functional outcome for individuals with schizophrenia (Butzlaff and Hooley, 1998) and a critical domain of intervention in treatment studies (Miklowitz, 2004). The Camberwell Family Interview (CFI; Leff and Vaughn, 1985), the gold standard measure of EE, is a 1–2 h semi-structured interview that is conducted with the patient's primary caregiver. The CFI is designed to elicit family attitudes about the patient's behavior and symptoms and is thought to reflect the family emotional environment and the interactions between family members (Hooley, 2007). When rating the interview, family member comments are rated to determine whether they represent attitudes that reflect five different indices: hostility, emotional overinvolvement (EOI), criticism, warmth, and positive remarks. A rating of high-EE is made based on six or more critical comments, or the presence of hostility, or a rating of 4 or more comments on an index of emotionally overinvolved attitudes.

Criticism and hostility, both components of high-EE, have consistently been linked to poor outcomes among patients with schizophrenia (Butzlaff and Hooley, 1998). Research findings have demonstrated that 65% of patients with schizophrenia relapse within one year while living in a high-EE environment, compared to about 35% in low-EE environments (Butzlaff and Hooley, 1998, Kavanagh, 1992). Despite the consistent findings of high-EE having high predictive validity, the results of studies examining how EOI, one of the components of a high-EE environment, relates to outcomes have been mixed. For instance, EOI predicted negative clinical outcomes among patients with chronic schizophrenia (Miklowitz et al., 1983) and positive clinical outcomes with patients at imminent risk for psychosis (O'Brien et al., 2006). In the early stages of developing the criteria for EE, warmth in conjunction with EOI was observed to have a positive effect on patients, but this finding has not been empirically tested (Leff and Vaughn, 1985). Due to the inconsistency of how EOI relates to outcomes, EOI was not included in the rating of “high-EE” status for the purposes of this study. Instead, EOI was analyzed independently and in relation to warmth to highlight how EOI operates in a UHR population.

In addition to testing the effect of EE on outcomes, the current study examined patient and parent self-reported perceptions of criticism and warmth in the family environment. Self-report ratings of perceived criticism and warmth were assessed in order to determine whether there was a significant difference between interview-based versus self-report ratings of the family environment and their comparative impact on outcomes. This is the first study to date to examine the effects of interview-based (e.g. CFI measured EE ratings) versus self-report (e.g. patient perceptions of criticism) ratings of the family environment and their relative effects on outcomes in a population at high risk for psychosis.

The current study hypothesized that:

  • 1)

    High-EE families will significantly differ from low-EE families, such that:

(a) high-EE family members will report higher mean levels of how critical they are and lower mean levels of their own expressions of warmth.In addition, (b) patients living in high-EE environments will report higher mean levels of perceived criticism from their primary caregiver, and lower mean levels of perceived warmth.
  • 2)

    A matched sample based on EE status, symptoms, and functioning, as measured at baseline, will report significantly different levels of symptoms and functioning at follow-up, such that patients living in high-EE family environments will report more severe symptoms and worse functioning at the 6-month follow-up, relative to the low-EE sample.

  • 3)

    Interview-based ratings of the family environment (e.g. CFI) and self-report ratings (patient and family perceptions of criticism and warmth) of the family environment at baseline will BOTH be predictive of a change in symptoms and functioning at follow-up, such that higher levels of criticism and lower levels of warmth will be predictive of worse symptoms and functioning at follow-up.

  • 4)

    Emotional overinvolvement and warmth will interact, such that moderate levels of EOI in the presence of warmth will be predictive of better functioning at follow-up.

Section snippets

Participants

Sixty-three outpatient participants, age 12 to 35, were recruited to participate in the study from individuals already enrolled in one of two prodromal research clinics: the Staglin Music Festival Center for the Assessment and Prevention of Prodromal States (CAPPS) at the University of California, Los Angeles and the Prodromal Assessment, Research and Treatment (PART) study at the University of California, San Francisco. An inclusion criterion for the CAPPS and PART studies was met by research

Preliminary analyses

At baseline, about twice as many families were identified as being low in EE (N = 42; 68.9% of the sample) than those identified as meeting criteria for high-EE status (N = 19; 31.1% of the sample). The distribution of high-and low-EE individuals is consistent with the rates of EE identified in previous studies with UHR and first episode populations (Hooley and Richters, 1995, O'Brien et al., 2006). Of the 19 family members identified as having high-EE attitudes, 13 exhibited hostility during the

Discussion

This study tested the longitudinal effects of the family environment on symptoms and functioning in individuals at high clinical risk for psychosis. The results identified the specific impact of high-EE on positive attenuated psychotic symptoms, such that patients living in high-EE environments exhibited worsening positive symptoms over time compared to those living in low-EE environments. This finding is particularly important considering that worsening positive symptoms signal the conversion

Limitations

The current study was limited by a relatively small sample size, which restricted the type of analyses that could have been conducted. For instance, structural equation modeling would be a useful statistical approach to examine the effects of family factors due to the ability to examine interactions in a more rigorous way. The small sample size also limited the power to detect if the family environment is predictive of conversion to psychosis. In order to further identify factors in the family

Future directions

The findings in the current study have significant clinical implications as well as indications for future research. In terms of future research studies, it would be beneficial to test if the findings from the current study are maintained over longer periods of follow-up. In addition, more complex models are warranted to examine the possible interactive effects of the family environment and biological risk factors. Due to the significant effect of family factors on prodromal symptoms and

Role of funding source

This research was supported by the following grants: NARSAD Young Investigator Award (MPO), NARSAD Young Investigator Award (CEB), NIMH MH65079 (TDC), NIMH MH066286 (TDC), as well as donations from the Rutherford Charitable Foundation and Staglin Music Festival for Mental Health (TDC), and a gift by the Lazslo N. Tauber Family Foundation. The funding sources had no further role in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the

Contributors

Dr. Schlosser designed the study, wrote the protocol, managed the literature searches, undertook the statistical analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the research assistants who coded the CFI's and administered the outcome measures.

References (16)

  • M.P. O'Brien et al.

    Positive family environment predicts improvement in symptoms and social functioning among adolescents at imminent risk for onset of psychosis

    Schizophr. Res.

    (2006)
  • R.L. Butzlaff et al.

    Expressed emotion and psychiatric relapse

    Arch. Gen. Psychiatry

    (1998)
  • T.D. Cannon et al.

    Prediction of psychosis in youth at high clinical risk: a multisite longitudinal study in North America

    Arch. Gen. Psychiatry

    (2008)
  • J.M. Hooley

    Expressed emotion and relapse of psychopathology

    Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.

    (2007)
  • J.M. Hooley et al.

    Expressed emotion: a developmental perspective

  • J.M. Hooley et al.

    Predictors of relapse in unipolar depressives: expressed emotion, marital distress, and perceived criticism

    J. Abnorm. Psychol.

    (1989)
  • D.J. Kavanagh

    Recent developments in expressed emotion and schizophrenia

    Br. J. Psychiatry

    (1992)
  • J. Leff et al.

    Expressed Emotion in Families

    (1985)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (65)

  • The effect of family environment and psychiatric family history on psychosocial functioning in first-episode psychosis at baseline and after 2 years

    2021, European Neuropsychopharmacology
    Citation Excerpt :

    These findings indicate that functional recovery at follow-up in FEP patients does not only depend on clinical remission and it should be considered as important as symptomatic recovery (Santesteban-Echarri et al., 2017). Previous literature identified that family environment plays a major role in longitudinal functioning in individuals at-risk of psychosis and FEP patients (O'Brien et al., 2006; Schlosser et al., 2010). Interestingly, in the present study environmental family styles perceived by the patients were significantly associated with functioning at-follow-up in both NA-PSYCH and A-PSYCH patients.

  • Perceived stress influences anhedonia and social functioning in a community sample enriched for psychosis-risk

    2021, Journal of Psychiatric Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    There is surprisingly little research focused on the effects of perceived stress on social functioning in psychosis. However, the broader literature does support a direct relationship between these two domains; for example, animal models clearly show life stressors impairing social behavior (Berton et al., 2006; Scheggi et al., 2018), and human psychosis-risk research finds that childhood maltreatment and poor home environment are associated with impaired social functioning later in life (Schlosser et al., 2010; Stain et al., 2014). Baseline cortisol levels – an endocrine indicator of stress – are also linked with poorer social functioning in non-psychiatric adult samples (Corcoran et al., 2003).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text