Sensitivity to stress has long been implicated in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia. It remains unclear, however, which exact mechanisms underlie the progression from vulnerability to psychotic breakdown. For the present study, we hypothesized that the induction of stress would aggravate cognitive biases in schizophrenia. A total of 20 acute and remitted schizophrenia patients and 15 healthy controls were tested with parallel versions of cognitive biases paradigms under 2 laboratory conditions: stress (loud noise, 75 dB) vs no-stress. In the course of both conditions, participants had to fill out a questionnaire that assessed depressive, obsessive-compulsive, and paranoid symptoms. For the patients with acute psychotic symptoms, paranoid but not other psychiatric symptoms were elevated under stress in comparison with no-stress. In contrast, stress somewhat diminished subclinical paranoid symptoms in healthy participants. Jumping to conclusions was evident in schizophrenia under both conditions but significantly more pronounced when stress was applied first in the acute group. A tendency emerged in both acute and remitted patients to attribute events to other people under stress which was not seen in healthy subjects. The present study may serve as a starting point for further research investigating how stress translates vulnerability into acute paranoia and to pinpoint cognitive risk factors that can be modified by treatment.

No abstract

Although awareness of side effects over the course of psychotherapy is growing, side effects are still not always reported. The purpose of the present study was to examine side effects in a randomized controlled trial comparing Metacognitive Training for Depression (D-MCT) and a cognitive remediation training in patients with depression. 84 patients were randomized to receive either D-MCT or cognitive remediation training (MyBrainTraining) for 8 weeks. Side effects were assessed after the completion of each intervention (post) using the Short Inventory of the Assessment of Negative Effects (SIAN) and again 6 months later (follow-up) using the Negative Effects Questionnaire (NEQ). D-MCT and MyBrainTraining did not differ significantly in the number of side effects. At post assessment, 50% of the D-MCT group and 59% of the MyBrainTraining group reported at least one side effect in the SIAN. The most frequently reported side effect was disappointment in subjective benefit of study treatment. At follow-up, 52% reported at least one side effect related to MyBrainTraining, while 34% reported at least one side effect related to the D-MCT in the NEQ. The most frequently reported side effects fell into the categories of “symptoms” and “quality”. Our NEQ version was missing one item due to a technical error. Also, allegiance effects should be considered. The sample size resulted in low statistical power. The relatively tolerable number of side effects suggests D-MCT and MyBrainTraining are safe and well-received treatment options for people with depression. Future studies should also measure negative effects to corroborate our results.

No abstract