Objective Comprehensive understanding of polyenvironmental risk factors for the development of psychosis is important. Based on a review of related evidence, we developed the Korea Polyenvironmental Risk Score (K-PERS) for psychosis. We investigated whether the K-PERS can differentiate patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) from healthy controls (HCs). Methods We reviewed existing tools for measuring polyenvironmental risk factors for psychosis, including the Maudsley Environmental Risk Score (ERS), polyenviromic risk score (PERS), and Psychosis Polyrisk Score (PPS). Using odds ratios and relative risks for Western studies and the "population proportion" (PP) of risk factors for Korean data, we developed the K-PERS, and compared the scores thereon between patients with SSDs and HCs. In addition, correlation was performed between the K-PERS and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Results We first constructed the "K-PERS-I, " comprising five factors based on the PPS, and then the "K-PERS-II" comprising six factors based on the ERS. The instruments accurately predicted participants' status (case vs. control). In addition, the K-PERS-I and -II scores exhibited significant negative correlations with the negative symptom factor score of the PANSS. ConclusionThe K-PERS is the first comprehensive tool developed based on PP data obtained from Korean studies that measures polyenvironmental risk factors for psychosis. Using pilot data, the K-PERS predicted patient status (SSD vs. HC). Further research is warranted to examine the relationship of K-PERS scores with clinical outcomes of psychosis and schizophrenia.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and related factors in individuals with mental disorders in Korea.MethodsWe surveyed 572 individuals with mental disorders about their attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination using a 7-item self-rating questionnaire on vaccine acceptance and hesitancy. We categorized the respondents into groups based on their level of vaccine acceptance using hierarchical clustering. In addition, we evaluated the respondents’ vaccination status and trust in sources of information regarding COVID-19 vaccines, and assessed their psychological characteristics using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Gratitude Questionnaire-6, and Big Five Inventory-10.ResultsClustering revealed three groups according to vaccine acceptance: ‘totally accepting’ (n= 246, 43.0%), ‘somewhat accepting’ (n= 184, 32.2%), and ‘hesitant’ (n= 142, 24.8%) groups. Three quarters of all participants, who belonged to the ‘totally accepting’ or ‘somewhat accepting’ groups, were willing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine despite concerns about its side effects. Individuals in the high vaccine acceptance group were older (F= 12.52, p< 0.001), more likely to receive the influenza vaccine regularly, and more likely to trust formal information sources. Additionally, they had higher levels of gratitude (F= 21.00, p< 0.001) and agreeableness (F= 4.50, p= 0.011), and lower levels of depression (χ2= 11.81, p= 0.003) and neuroticism (F= 3.71, p= 0.025).ConclusionThe present study demonstrated that individuals with mental disorders were generally willing to receive COVID-19 vaccination. However, they weighed its need and effectiveness against potential side effects before coming to a decision. It is important to understand the behavioral and psychological characteristics associated with vaccine acceptance, to effectively communicate its importance to individuals with mental disorders.

No abstract