Auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) are complex experiences that occur in the context of various clinical disorders. AVH also occur in individuals from the general population who have no identifiable psychiatric or neurological diagnoses. This article reviews research on AVH in nonclinical individuals and provides a cross-disciplinary view of the clinical relevance of these experiences in defining the risk of mental illness and need for care. Prevalence rates of AVH vary according to measurement tool and indicate a continuum of experience in the general population. Cross-sectional comparisons of individuals with AVH with and without need for care reveal similarities in phenomenology and some underlying mechanisms but also highlight key differences in emotional valence of AVH, appraisals, and behavioral response. Longitudinal studies suggest that AVH are an antecedent of clinical disorders when combined with negative emotional states, specific cognitive difficulties and poor coping, plus family history of psychosis, and environmental exposures such as childhood adversity. However, their predictive value for specific psychiatric disorders is not entirely clear. The theoretical and clinical implications of the reviewed findings are discussed, together with directions for future research.

The international Hearing Voices Movement (HVM) is a prominent mental health service-user/survivor movement that promotes the needs and perspectives of experts by experience in the phenomenon of hearing voices (auditory verbal hallucinations). The main tenet of the HVM is the notion that hearing voices is a meaningful human experience, and in this article, we discuss the historical growth and influence of the HVM before considering the implications of its values for research and practice in relation to voice-hearing. Among other recommendations, we suggest that the involvement of voice-hearers in research and a greater use of narrative and qualitative approaches are essential. Challenges for implementing user-led research are identified, and avenues for future developments are discussed.

Voice hearing (VH) is often regarded as pathognomic for schizophrenia. The purpose of this article is to review and integrate historical, clinical, epidemiological, and phenomenological evidence in order to suggest that VH may be more appropriately understood as a dissociative rather than a psychotic phenomenon. First, we discuss the lifetime prevalence of VH in the general population, which is estimated to range between 1% and 16% for adult nonclinical populations and 2% and 41% in healthy adolescent samples. Second, we demonstrate how the ubiquity of VH phenomenology, including variables like voice location, content, and frequency, limits its diagnostic and prognostic utility for differentiating psychotic from trauma-spectrum and nonclinical populations. Finally, we report on the empirical associations between VH, measures of dissociation, and trauma particularly (though not exclusively) childhood sexual abuse. There are 2 main conclusions from this review. First, we argue that available evidence suggests that VH experiences, including those in the context of psychotic disorders, can be most appropriately understood as dissociated or disowned components of the self (or self-other relationships) that result from trauma, loss, or other interpersonal stressors. Second, we provide a rationale for clinicians to use psychotherapeutic methods for integrating life events as precipitating and/or maintaining factors for distressing voices. Potential mechanisms for the relationship between trauma, dissociation, VH, and clinical diagnosis are described, including the relevance of literature from the field of attachment in providing a diathesis for dissociation. Suggestions for future research are also discussed.

BackgroundTwo discourses exist in mental health research and practice. The first focuses on the limitations associated with disability arising from mental disorder. The second focuses on the possibilities for living well with mental health problems.DiscussionThis article was prompted by a review to inform disability policy. We identify seven findings from this review: recovery is best judged by experts or using standardised assessment; few people with mental health problems recover; if a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are in remission; diagnosis is a robust basis for characterising groups and predicting need; treatment and other supports are important factors for improving outcome; the barriers to receiving effective treatment are availability, financing and client awareness; and the impact of mental illness, in particular schizophrenia, is entirely negative. We selectively review a wider range of evidence which challenge these findings, including the changing understanding of recovery, national mental health policies, systematic review methodology and undertainty, epidemiological evidence about recovery rates, reasoning biased due to assumptions about mental illness being an illness like any other, the contested nature of schizophrenia, the social construction of diagnoses, alternative explanations for psychosis experiences including the role of trauma, diagnostic over-shadowing, stigma, the technological paradigm, the treatment gap, social determinants of mental ill-health, the prevalence of voice-hearing in the general population, and the sometimes positive impact of psychosis experience in relation to perspective and purpose.ConclusionWe propose an alternative seven messages which are both empirically defensible and more helpful to mental health stakeholders: Recovery is best judged by the person living with the experience; Many people with mental health problems recover; If a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are not ill; Diagnosis is not a robust foundation; Treatment is one route among many to recovery; Some people choose not to use mental health services; and the impact of mental health problems is mixed.

No abstract