title: Toward a world consensus on prevention of schizophrenia.
abstract: Screening for preschizophrenia in the general population with the aim of preventing transition to full-blown illness is an epidemiological impossibility because a rare disease cannot be predicted. The lack of specificity resulting in abundance of false-positives can be remedied in part by using much more restrictive screening criteria that combine several indicators of risk for transition to schizophrenia. Raising the specificity (reducing the false-positives), however, can only be done at the expense of sensitivity (increasing the false-negatives). The most commonly used strategy to raise specificity is the sample enrichment strategy. This involves the creation of samples enriched with schizophrenia risk by selectively filtering at-risk people out over a range of consecutive referral processes starting in the general population, through to general practioners, mental health services, and the early detection clinic. However, improvements in specificity obtained by the sample enrichment strategy should not be attributed to the use of some predictive instrument that supposedly identifies high-risk individuals. The epidemiologically and ethically most viable way for screening and early detection is to selectively increase the permeability of the filters on the pathway to mental health care. This will occasion samples of help-seekers enriched with schizophrenia risk at the level of mental health services (thus reducing false-positives), while at the same time making an attempt to "attract" as many detectable schizophrenia prodromes as possible through the filters along the pathway to mental health care (thus reducing false-negatives). Early psychosis research has yielded some useful suggestions in that it is becoming increasingly clear that it is not just psychosis itself, but rather the clinical context of the psychotic experience that determines risk for transition to schizophrenia. Thus, risk for transition to full-blown psychotic disorder is to a large degree determined by size of psychosis "load," comorbid distress and depression, cannabis use, cognitive ability, and subjective reports of impairment and coping. Making a diagnosis of psychotic disorder is not an exact science: it involves an arbitrary cutoff imposed on dimensional variation of psychopathology and need for care over time. Gaining insight into the cognitive and biological factors that drive the dimensional variation, including therapeutic interventions, is arguably more useful than sterile dichotomous prediction models.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, South Limburg Mental Health Research and Teaching Network, European Graduate School of Neuroscience, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. j.vanos@sp.unimaas.nl
authors.forename: Jim
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Van Os
authors.forename: Philippe
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Delespaul
mesh_terms: D014943:Global Health; D006801:Humans; D011618:Psychotic Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D012307:Risk Factors; D012559:Schizophrenia / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000517:prevention & control*