IGMPI facebook Research Identifies Factors Linked to Remission Among People at High Clinical Risk of Psychosis
IGMPI Logo
Centre for Health Management and Research

(An Autonomous Body Recognized by Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India)

Competency based placement focussed Education | Training | Research | Consultancy

18001031071 (Toll Free), +91 11 26512850

C-6, Qutab Institutional Area, Near Old JNU Campus, New Delhi-110016

Regular | Part-time (Online Live Classes) Modes
Research Identifies Factors Linked to Remission Among People at High Clinical Risk of Psychosis

Research Identifies Factors Linked to Remission Among People at High Clinical Risk of Psychosis

A systematic review published in the journal Schizophrenia has examined the factors associated with remission among people considered to be at clinical high risk of psychosis. The findings may help researchers better understand why some individuals experience an improvement in symptoms while others continue to face psychological difficulties.

People classified as being at clinical high risk of psychosis may experience changes in thinking, perception or behaviour that suggest an increased likelihood of developing a psychotic disorder. However, this classification does not mean that a person will inevitably develop psychosis. Outcomes vary considerably, making early assessment and follow-up important aspects of clinical care.

The researchers reviewed 51 longitudinal studies involving 10,073 participants across 15 countries. The studies followed participants for periods ranging from eight months to six years. The review found that approximately one-third of individuals in this high-risk group experienced remission during follow-up.

Several factors were repeatedly associated with better outcomes. These included stronger everyday functioning at the beginning of the assessment period, less severe psychosis-like symptoms, fewer negative symptoms and better performance on certain cognitive tasks, particularly verbal learning. Some studies also suggested that characteristics of speech and specific measures of brain activity could be relevant, although the evidence for these factors was less extensive.

The authors noted that the studies differed in their methods and the factors they examined. This variation makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about individual predictors or apply the findings uniformly to every patient.

The review supports a broader approach to assessing clinical risk, bringing together information about symptoms, cognitive abilities and everyday functioning rather than relying on a single indicator. Further research will be needed to establish how these factors can be combined reliably to guide early intervention and improve longer-term outcomes.

06-10-2026