• Aucun résultat trouvé

A large European, multicenter, multinational validation study of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "A large European, multicenter, multinational validation study of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale"

Copied!
9
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Article

Reference

A large European, multicenter, multinational validation study of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale

MUCCI, Armida, et al.

Abstract

Negative symptoms represent an unmet need of treatment in schizophrenia. Although a consensus exists on negative symptom construct, and second generation assessment instruments reflecting the consensus are available, studies still rely upon old assessment instruments, that do not reflect recent conceptualizations and might limit progress in the search for effective treatments. This is often the case in the European context, where one of the challenges encountered in designing large studies is the availability of validated instruments in the many languages of the continent. To address this challenge and promote sound research on negative symptoms in Europe, the ECNP Schizophrenia Network coordinated a large multicenter, multinational validation study of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS). Clinically-stable subjects with schizophrenia (SCZ, N = 249) were recruited from 10 European Countries. Apart from BNSS, subjects were administered the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and standardized instruments for depression, extrapyramidal symptoms and psychosocial functioning. Results showed an excellent [...]

MUCCI, Armida, et al. A large European, multicenter, multinational validation study of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 2019, vol. 29, no. 8, p.

947-959

DOI : 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2019.05.006 PMID : 31255394

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:132683

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

1

A large European, multicenter, multinational validation study of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale

Supplementary materials

Index

- Figure S1. 1-Factor Model of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale

- Figure S2. 2-Factor Model of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale - Figure S3. 5-Factor Model of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale - Figure S4. Hierarchical Model of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale

- Table S1. Frequency of at least one negative symptom of moderate severity for each recruiting center

- Table S2. Correlations between the Brief Negative Symptom Scale and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores for core negative symptoms for each center involved in the study - Table S3. Correlations of Personal and Social Performance total score with Brief Negative Symptom Scale and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score for core negative symptoms for each center involved in the study

- References

(3)

2

Figure S1. 1-Factor Model of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale

BNSS= Brief Negative Symptom Scale; Neg_Sx= Negative Symptoms

(4)

3

Figure S2. 2-Factor Model of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale

BNSS= Brief Negative Symptom Scale; MAP= Motivation and Pleasure; EXP= Expressive Deficit

(5)

4

Figure S3. 5-Factor Model of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale

BNSS= Brief Negative Symptom Scale; BA= Blunted Affect

(6)

5

Figure S4. Hierarchical Model of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale

BNSS= Brief Negative Symptom Scale; BA= Blunted Affect; MAP= Motivation and Pleasure;

EXP= Expressive Deficit

(7)

6

Table S1. Frequency of at least one negative symptom of moderate severity for each recruiting center

Centers BNSS PANSS

N % N %

01 Austria* 8/25 32 7/25 28

02 Austria* 11/20 55 10/20 50

04 Czech Republic 15/20 75 16/20 80

05 Denmark* 11/25 44 15/25 60

06 France 27/32 84.4 23/32 71.9

10 Italy* 20/25 80 15/25 60

11 Norway 4/7 57.1 3/7 42.9

12 Poland* 6/20 30 5/20 25

14 Switzerland* 14/26 53.8 13/26 50

15 Russia* 11/20 55 6/20 30

16 Turkey* 18/20 90 12/20 60

17 Denmark* 2/9 22.2 3/9 33.3

BNSS= Brief Negative Symptom Scale; PANSS=Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale.

*Validation studies for the BNSS translations: Danish (Gehr et al., 2019), German (Bishof et al., 2016), Italian (Mucci et al., 2015; Merlotti et al., 2014), Polish (Wójciak et al., 2018), Russian (Kirkpatrick et al., 2018) and Turkish (Polat Nazli et al., 2016) versions reliability data were already published.

Table S2. Correlations between the Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores for core negative symptoms for each center involved in the study

Centers R (p)

01 Austria 0.73 (0.0001) 02 Austria 0.84 (0.0001) 04 Czech Republic 0.90 (0.0001) 05 Denmark 0.73 (0.0001)

06 France 0.82 (0.0001)

10 Italy 0.77 (0.0001)

11 Norway 0.94 (0.0001)

12 Poland 0.88 (0.0001)

14 Switzerland 0.97 (0.0001)

15 Russia 0.90 (0.0001)

16 Turkey 0.78 (0.0001)

17 Denmark 0.92 (0.0001) ALL Centers 0.81 (0.0001)

(8)

7

Table S3. Correlations of Personal and Social Performance (PSP) total score with Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score for core negative symptoms for each center involved in the study

Centers BNSS PANSS

R (p) R (p)

01 Austria -0.40 (0.05) -0.19 (0.38)

02 Austria -0.27 (0.25) -0.12 (0.61)

04 Czech Republic -0.45 (0.05) -0.32 (0.17)

05 Denmark -0.19 (0.36) -0.35 (0.09)

06 France -0.40 (0.03) -0.38 (0.03)

10 Italy -0.46 (0.02) -0.56 (0.004)

11 Norway N/A N/A

12 Poland -0.91 (0.0001) -0.82 (0.0001)

14 Switzerland -0.71 (0.0001) -0.71 (0.0001)

15 Russia -0.78 (0.0001) -0.67 (0.001)

16 Turkey -0.65 (0.02) -0.63 (0.03)

17 Denmark -0.15 (0.69) -0.18 (0.65)

ALL Centers -0.49 (0.0001) -0.48 (0.0001)

N/A=PSP evaluation not available for this center; Difference between lowest coefficients (center 17-Denmark, r=-0.15/-0.18 for BNSS/PANSS) and highest ones (center 12-Poland, r=-0.91/-0.82 for BNSS/PANSS) was not significant (z=2.78/2.05; p>0.05 Bonferroni corrected).

(9)

8

References

Bischof, M., Obermann, C., Hartmann, M.N., Hager, O.M., Kirschner, M., Kluge A., Strauss, G.P., Kaiser, S., 2016. The brief negative symptom scale: validation of the German translation and convergent validity with self-rated anhedonia and observer-rated apathy. BMC Psychiatry 16, 415- 423.

Mucci, A., Galderisi, S., Merlotti, E., Rossi, A., Rocca, P., Bucci, P., Piegari, G., Chieffi, M., Vignapiano, A., Maj, M., Italian Network for Research on, P., 2015. The Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS): Independent validation in a large sample of Italian patients with schizophrenia. Eur Psychiatry 30, 641-647.

Merlotti, E., Mucci, A., Bucci, P., Nardi, A., Galderisi S., 2014. Italian version of the “Brief Negative Symptom Scale”. Journal of Psychopathology 20, 199-215

Wójciak, P., Górna, K., Domowicz, K., Jaracz, K., Gołębiewska, K., Michalak, M., Rybakowski, J., 2018. Polish version of the Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS). Psychiatr. Pol. ONLINE FIRST 119, 1-9

Polat Nazlı, I., Ergül, C., Aydemir, Ö., Chandhoke, S., Üçok, A., Gönül, A.S., 2016. Validation of Turkish version of brief negative symptom scale. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 20, 265-71

Références

Documents relatifs

01GS08134] (RK); the NGFNplus (Neuron-Parkinson-subproject 7) (SG); CHRU de Lille, UnivLille 2, Inserm; French Ministry PHRCs (1994/, 2002/1918, 2005/1914); Association France

In this study an attempt was made to validate the Persian translation of fear of negative evaluation scale (Watson & Friend, 1969).. The scale was translated into Persian

This study aimed to estimate the incidence, causative agents, management and outcomes of anaphylaxis in pregnancy across Europe using both prospective and retrospective data

Although quantifying the effect of the risk of predation on the reproduction and survival of prey in wild populations of large mam- mals poses serious challenges (Say-Sallaz et

has received speaking honoraria and travel expenses for scientific meetings, has been a steering committee member of clinical trials or participated in advisory boards of

This study included a large number of genotyped and extensively phenotyped patients (276 mutation carriers) compared with a group of cases not carrying mutations of known

For most available interventions, further evidence is needed to formulate sound recommendations for primary, persistent, or predominant negative symptoms.However, based on

Many small studies were included, exposing to an inflated effect sizes Original studies did not target primary or predominant negative symptoms Very limited number of