Skip to main content
NCBI home page
European Journal of Psychotraumatology logoLink to European Journal of Psychotraumatology
. 2023 Apr 3;14(2):2193327. doi: 10.1080/20008066.2023.2193327

Attenuated psychotic symptoms, substance use and self-reported PTSD in adolescence

Síntomas psicóticos atenuados, consumo de sustancias y TEPT autodeclarado en la adolescencia

青少年中轻微的精神病症状、物质使用和自我报告的 PTSD

Lukas Andreas Basedow a,b,CONTACT, Melina Felicitas Wiedmann b, Sören Kuitunen-Paul b,c, Veit Roessner b, Yulia Golub b
PMCID: PMC10071952  PMID: 37010565

ABSTRACT

Background: The occurrence of attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) is a major concern in populations with substance use disorders (SUDs). However, APS also frequently develop in the course of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). This study explores how the prevalence of APS differs between adolescent patients with only SUD, SUD with a history of traumatic experiences (TEs), and with SUD and self-reported PTSD.

Methods: We recruited n = 120 treatment-seeking adolescents at a German outpatient clinic for adolescents with SUD. All participants filled out questionnaires assessing APS (PQ-16, YSR schizoid scale), trauma history, PTSD symptoms (both UCLA PTSD Index), and SUD severity (DUDIT) next to an extensive substance use interview. We performed a multivariate analysis of co-variance with the four PQ-16 scales and the YSR scale as outcomes and PTSD status as predictor. Additionally, we performed five linear regressions predicting each PQ-16 score and YSR score based on tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamine, and methamphetamine use.

Results: Participants with co-occurring SUD and self-reported PTSD showed significantly higher APS prevalence rates (PQ-16 score, p = .00002), more disturbed thought content (p = .000004), more perceptual disturbances (p = .002), more negative symptoms (p = .004) and more thought problems (p = .001) compared to adolescents with SUD and a history of trauma and adolescents with only SUD. Past-year substance use was not predictive for APS prevalence (F(75) = 0.42; p = .86; R2 = .04).

Conclusion: Our data suggests that the occurrence of APS in adolescents with SUD is better explained by co-occurring self-reported PTSD than by substance use frequency or substance class. This finding might indicate that APS might be reduced through treating PTSD or focusing on TEs in SUD therapy.

KEYWORDS: Addiction, trauma, psychosis, drug use, adolescent

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Adolescents with co-occurring substance use disorders and PTSD show increased rates of Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms (APS).

  • A history of traumatic experiences and PTSD are stronger predictors for APS than substance use.

  • APS in adolescents with substance use disorders may be an indication of undiagnosed and/or untreated co-occurring PTSD.

1. Background

Early identification of individuals with an increased risk for psychotic disorders is one of the most important prerequisites for their efficient prevention and treatment. Attenuated psychotic syndrome (American Psychiatric Association & American Psychiatric Association, 2013) also known as attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS) are strong indicators of a patient being at ultra-high risk of developing psychosis (Fusar-Poli et al., 2013, 2016). APS refers to the presence of subthreshold symptoms of a psychotic episode, such as unusual thought content, suspiciousness, grandiose ideas, perceptual abnormalities, or disorganised communication (Salazar de Pablo et al., 2020). APS are considered to be present if one of the symptoms listed above reaches clinically significant disturbance below psychotic intensity (McGlashan et al., 2010). Even though self-reported APS are less predictive than clinician-reported symptoms (Fusar-Poli et al., 2017), self-reported APS are still associated with a four-fold risk of subsequent hospitalisation for a psychotic disorder and a two-fold risk of hospitalisation for other mental disorders (Werbeloff et al., 2012). Accordingly, the concept of APS is a useful tool to identify individuals that have an increased risk of developing a psychotic disorder (Arango, 2011). However, as mentioned above APS are not only indicative of future psychotic disorders but are also associated with other mental disorders, making it necessary to carefully assess the diagnostic specificity of reported APS (Gaudiano & Zimmerman, 2012; Rosen et al., 2006).

Substance use and substance use disorders (SUDs) are strongly linked to psychosis and APS (Matheson et al., 2022). For instance, 50% of patients with a first episode of psychosis present with a co-occurring SUD (Brunette et al., 2018). Furthermore, the severity of SUD is positively correlated with increased APS prevalence (Smith et al., 2009).

This relationship seen in adult patients can also be observed in adolescents. Substance use, particularly cannabis and ecstasy use by adolescents, is associated with a high-risk for psychosis (Carney et al., 2017; Wiedmann, Kuitunen-Paul, et al., 2022) and admission due to psychotic symptoms (Baeza et al., 2009; Schimmelmann et al., 2012).

At present a co-occurrence of APS and SUD is commonly interpreted as an indicator of a high risk for a prodromal stage of substance-induced psychosis (Beckmann et al., 2020).

However, APS are diagnostically diverse and adolescents with SUD also present with other mental disorder (Kuitunen-Paul et al., 2021; Wiedmann, Atzendorf, et al., 2022), thus it is possible that co-occurrence of SUD and APS might be related to yet another factor.

One of these factors may be the high incidence of traumatic experiences (TEs) or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adolescents with SUD (Basedow et al., 2020). Previous research has shown that TEs are highly prevalent in adolescent who report APS (Fusar-Poli, Tantardini, et al., 2017; Kelleher et al., 2008) and that TEs stay a significant predictor for APS even when taking substance use into account (Wiedmann, Kuitunen-Paul, et al., 2022). Specific APS that are associated with TEs and PTSD are suspiciousness and grandiose ideas (Falukozi & Addington, 2012) as well as perceptual abnormalities (Scott et al., 2007; Simon et al., 2014). One reason why APS are related to trauma related disorders could be a trauma-induced stress sensitivity which increases the risk for later APS development through alterations of the neurobiological stress system (Holtzman et al., 2013). In previous studies PTSD and TEs have often been grouped together as a single risk factor for APS, however, it remains to be investigated whether individuals with TEs but not PTSD suffer from APS at a similar rate as patients with PTSD. Thus it is not clear how the presence of TEs and/or PTSD in adolescent patients with SUD relates to prevalence of APS. This knowledge is important especially for clinicians to make correct diagnostic decisions and choose appropriate treatment strategies.

We aimed to explore if a history of TEs or a current PTSD can predict APS in adolescents with SUDs. In addition we investigated associations between past-year use estimates for different psychoactive substances and current APS.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

Between November 2017 and December 2022, n = 120 treatment-seeking adolescents at a German outpatient clinic for adolescents with SUD consented to participate in the study and filled out all relevant questionnaires. Participants were divided into three groups according to their trauma status resulting from a PTSD questionnaire: patients with SUD without history of traumatic experiences (‘No TEs’), patients with SUD with a history of TEs but no current PTSD (‘TEs’), and patients with SUD and self-reported PTSD (‘PTSD’). Notably, adolescent patients did not qualify for acute (drug-induced) psychosis or psychotic symptoms that would have required treatment.

2.2. Procedure

Data collection was embedded into the standard diagnostic procedures at the Outpatient Clinic for Adolescent Substance Abuse, University Hospital C. G. Carus Dresden, Germany, see study protocol NCT03444974 registered at clinicaltrials.gov. Questionnaires were handed out to patients and their legal guardians at the first consultation appointment. The sample was collected via consecutive admission of treatment-seeking patients. The criteria for SUDs according to ICD-10 were assessed in an admission interview by a trained clinical psychologist. The admission interview only includes a proper interview section for SUD criteria, while criteria for other mental disorders are screened for via questionnaires. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital C. G. Carus Dresden (EK 66022018).

2.3. Measures

Attenuated psychotic symptoms. The German 16-Item short version (PQ-16) (Ising et al., 2012) of the Prodromal Questionnaire (PQ) (Loewy et al., 2005) is a screening questionnaire assessing the presence of APS in the past month on a two-point scale (true/false) and subjective load on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (‘not at all’) to 3 (‘very much’). The PQ-16 questionnaire provides a total score for all 16 items and three additional subscales: unusual thought content/delusional ideas (5 items), perceptual abnormalities/hallucinations (9 items) and negative symptoms (2 items). The questionnaire is validated for use in adolescents with a cut-total score of 7 indicating high-risk status for psychosis (de Jong et al., 2020)

Thought problems. The Youth Self-Report (YSR/11-18) (Arbeitsgruppe Deutsche Child Behavior Checklist, 1998) is a questionnaire on which adolescents rate their behavioural, emotional, social and physical problems for the previous six months. The questionnaire consists of 120 items with three response options (0 = ‘not applicable’, 1 = ‘sometimes’, 2 = ‘frequently’). For this project, we only analysed the total score on the thought problem subscale (6 items) as a dependent variable (DV).

Substance use disorder severity. The Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) (Voluse et al., 2012) is a self-report instrument composed of 11 items related to problems with illegal substance use, deemed reliable for the use in adolescents (Basedow, Kuitunen-Paul, Eichler, et al., 2021). Scoring of the DUDIT is two-fold: items one to nine are scored on a five-point Likert scale, while items ten and eleven are scored on a three-point scale. DV was the total DUDIT score.

Trauma status and PTSD symptoms. The German version (Ruf et al., 2011) of the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index for DSM-IV (Steinberg et al., 2004) is a questionnaire assessing lifetime TEs and current PTSD symptoms in adolescents. In the questionnaire, participants select the frequency of occurrence of PTSD symptoms during the past month (rated from 0 = ‘none of the time’ to 4 = ‘most of the time’). The items map directly onto the DSM-IV intrusion (Criterion B), avoidance (Criterion C), and hyperarousal (Criterion D) symptoms. Criterion A is fulfilled if one of the listed traumatic situations is checked off as having happened to the participant. Criterion B is fulfilled if one of five intrusion items is rated as 2 (=some of the time) or higher. Criterion C is fulfilled if three out of nine avoidance items are rated as 2 or higher. Criterion D is fulfilled if two out of six hyperarousal items are rates 2 or higher. These criteria are based on psychometric validation studies (Elhai et al., 2013; Steinberg et al., 2013) and have been applied in clinical settings (Oswald et al., 2010). Since this questionnaire is a self-report measure and does not include clinical judgment, we considered PTSD as probable and not as established when all four criteria (criterion A, B, C, & D) are fulfilled (Steinberg et al., 2004). DVs for this questionnaire were the probable presence of a PTSD (yes/no) and whether TEs were reported (yes/no).

Substance use. The pattern of substance use was assessed via an interview (Golub et al., 2021), asking for the number of days each substance was used per month over the past year and for the average quantity of used substance per day. DV from this assessment was calculated by multiplying the average number of use days with the average daily amount per substance used, resulting in the estimated average amount of substance used per month (e.g. grams of cannabis per month). Assessed substances were tobacco (cigarettes), alcohol, cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamine, and methamphetamine.

2.4. Statistical analysis

All calculations were performed with IBM SPSS 27 (IBM, 2020). Descriptive group differences in age, gender, and substance use variables were assessed with ANOVA, chi-square test and MANOVA respectively. The three groups differed only in terms of their gender distribution (see Table 1). Therefore, we performed a two-way MANOVA with group (‘no TEs’, ‘TEs’, ‘PTSD’) and gender (male, female) as factors and the four PQ-16 scales as outcomes. Since not all participants filled out the YSR thought problems scale, we performed a separate two-way ANOVA with only the YSR scale as outcome. When the group effect was significant, post-hoc t-tests were performed to compare the differences on the significant scale between each group, corrected for false-positives via the Bonferroni method (Bland & Altman, 1995). To investigate the association between substance use variables and each of the four PQ-16 scales as well as the YSR thought problems scale, we performed five linear regressions with substance use variables (DUDIT score, cigarette, alcohol, cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamine, methamphetamine use) as predictors.

Table 1.

Demographic details of participants.

  SUD and No TEs (n = 33) SUD and TEs (n = 47) SUD and PTSD (n = 40) Group comparison
        Test statistic (df) p-value Effect size (η2)
Age in years; M (SD) 15.8 (1.4) 15.9 (1.3) 16.1 (1.2) F (119) = 0.44 .649 η2 = .007
% of female patients 24.2% 38.3% 62.5% X2 (2) = 11.39 .003* V = .22
DUDIT score; M (SD) 16.2 (10.2) 16.5 (9.8) 19.3 (11.3) F (117) = 1.06 .350 η2 = .018
Substance units per month over past year; M (SD)
Number of cigarettes 275.5 (278.8) 339.1 (284.0) 311.1 (267.2) F (75) = 0.58 .562 η2 = .016
Alcoholic standard drinks 58.6 (116.1) 107.1 (242.1) 125.0 (205.1) F (75) = 0.91 .405 η2 = .024
Grams of cannabis 47.3 (86.1) 59.0 (81.0) 37.4 (49.5) F (75) = 0.87 .425 η2 = .023
Number of ecstasy pills 3.64 (9.6) 0.8 (1.8) 12.4 (33.1) F (75) = 2.32 .106 η2 = .060
Grams of amphetamine 0.9 (3.7) 1.1 (4.9) 0.4 (1.1) F (75) = 0.52 .595 η2 = .014
Grams of methamphetamine 0.6 (2.7) 5.8 (24.7) 9.0 (33.0) F (75) = 0.83 .440 η2 = .022
Open in a new tab

Note: DUDIT, Drug Use Disorder Identification Test; TE, Traumatic Event; PTSD, Post-traumatic stress disorder.

Significance level was set to p < .05. Effect sizes were classified according to Cohen (1988) into small effects (|η2| ≥ .01; |b| ≥ .10), medium effects (|η2| ≥ .06; |b| ≥ .30), and large effects (|η2| ≥ .14; |b| ≥ .50).

3. Results

3.1. Participants

The three groups of participants did not differ in terms of age (F(119) = 0.44, p = .649), but in terms of their gender distribution (X2(2) = 11.39, p = .003), with the No TEs group having a lower percentage of female participants, see Table 1 for details.

3.2. APS in adolescents with SUD

We observed a group (‘no TEs’ vs. ‘TEs’ vs. ‘PTSD’) effect on PQ-16 scores among adolescent patients with SUD (F(226) = 4.74, p = .0001, η2 = .112), but no interaction effect between group and gender (F(226) = 1.24, p = .286, η2 = .032). The three groups (‘no TEs’, ‘TEs’, ‘PTSD’) differed in terms of their total PQ-16 score (F(114) = 11.99, p = .00002, η2 = .174), disturbed thought content (F(114) = 13.92, p = .000004, η2 = .196), perceptual disturbances (F(114) = 6.60, p = .002, η2 = .104), and negative symptoms (F(114) = 5.92, p = .004, η2 = .094). Furthermore, the MANOVA also showed a group effect on the YSR thought problem scale (F(53) = 7.67, p = .001, η2 = .242) and again no interaction effect of group and gender (F(53) = 0.27, p = .768, η2 = .011). Based on their effect sizes, all effects are at least of medium size, and the group differences in total PQ-16 score, disturbed thought content and YSR thought problems were large. Post-hoc analysis revealed that the ‘PTSD’ group scored higher on each PQ-16 subscale as well as the YSR thought problem scale, compared to the ‘No TEs’ and ‘TEs’ group, see Table 2. All comparisons between the ‘no TEs’ and ‘TEs’ group were not statistically significant.

Table 2.

Means and multiple comparisons.

  SUD and No TEs (n = 33) SUD and TEs (n = 47) SUD and PTSD (n = 40)
Means and standard deviations
PQ-16 – total 3.27 (3.1) 3.77 (3.3) 7.00 (4.0)
PQ-16 – thought 1.30 (1.2) 1.60 (1.3) 2.90 (1.4)
PQ-16 – perceptual 1.30 (1.9) 1.64 (2.0) 3.08 (2.6)
PQ-16 – negative 0.67 (0.5) 0.53 (0.7) 1.08 (0.7)
YSR – thought problems 55.46 (6.6) 55.55 (8.3) 65.62 (8.3)
Multiple Comparisons*
  No TEs vs. PTSD TEs vs. PTSD
PQ-16 – total Diff. = |3.73|, t (71) = −4.41, p = .00005 Diff. = |3.23|, t (85) = −4.15, p = .0001
PQ-16 – thought Diff. = |1.55|, t (71) = −4.89, p = .000007 Diff. = |1.25|, t (85) = −4.33, p = .00007
PQ-16 – perceptual Diff. = |1.77|, t (71) = −3.24, p = .003 Diff. = |1.44|, t (85) = −2.90, p = .010
PQ-16 – negative Diff. = |0.41|, t (71) = −2.67, p = .029 Diff. = |0.54|, t (85) = −3.57, p = .0006
YSR – thought problems Diff. = |10.16|, t (32) = −3.73, p = .003 Diff. = |10.07|, t (39) = −3.88, p = .0007
Open in a new tab

Note: *only statistically significant post-hoc tests are displayed. All comparisons between the ‘no TEs’ and ‘TE’ group were non-significant. PQ-16, Prodromal Questionnaire 16-item version; YSR, Youth Safe Report; TE, Traumatic Event; PTSD, Post-traumatic stress disorder; Diff., mean difference between groups.

3.3. Association of substance use with APS

Substance use variables (tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, ecstasy, amphetamine, methamphetamine use) were not significantly associated with PQ-16 total score (F(75) = 0.42; p = .86; R2 = .04), PQ-16 thought disturbance (F(75) = 0.64; p = .70; R2 = .05), PQ-16 perceptual symptoms (F(75) = 0.43; p = .86; R2 = .04), PQ-16 negative symptoms (F(75) = 0.22; p = .75; R2 = .05), or YSR thought problems (F(35) = 2.31; p = .06; R2 = .32). See Table 3, for an overview over standardised coefficients and test results for each variable in each regression model.

Table 3.

Regression coefficients for the five performed regression analyses.

  PQ-16 – total PQ-16 – thought PQ-16 – perceptual PQ-16 – negative YSR – thought problems
Tobacco b = −.075; p = .628 b = −.067; p = .666 b = −.031; p = .840 b = −.091; p = .555 b = −.347; p = .109
Alcohol b = .104; p = .474 b = .034; p = .813 b = −.067; p = .648 b = .164; p = .262 b = .342; p = .094
Cannabis b = .154; p = .205 b = .138; p = .260 b = .105; p = .392 b = .059; p = .626 b = .177; p = .280
Ecstasy b = −007; p = .952 b = −.025; p = .842 b = −.058; p = .643 b = .034; p = .783 b = .451; p = .007
Amphetamine b = −.128; p = .287 b = −.111; p = .360 b = −.085; p = .483 b = −.036; p = .766 b = −.263; p = .140
Methamphetamine b = .123; p = .319 b = .100; p = .423 b = .118; p = .346 b = −.118; p = .342 b = .034; p = .851
Open in a new tab

Note: PQ-16, Prodromal Questionnaire 16-item version; YSR, Youth Safe Report.

4. Discussion

In the present study, we investigated whether the extent of APS is associated with a lifetime history of TEs or an additional self-reported PTSD in adolescent SUD outpatients without acute psychotic symptoms. We showed that patients with the combination of SUD and self-reported PTSD show higher levels of APS in each assessed domain than patients with SUD without self-reported PTSD even if they have a lifetime history of TEs. The frequency of substance use and severity of SUD were not related to levels of APS.

On one hand these results confirm previous findings relating the presence of PTSD to an increased level of APS (Simon et al., 2014) and indicate that an increased level of APS in adolescent patients with SUD might be due to this association. Patients with a history of TEs but not PTSD might also be exposed to protective factors, such as social support (McCrory et al., 2022), that protect from development of PTSD as well as APS.

Furthermore, our findings are not in line with findings associating substance use, and ecstasy use specifically, with APS. For example, case reports indicate that ecstasy users might develop psychotic-like symptoms or depersonalisation (Majić et al., 2022; Vaiva et al., 2001; Virani et al., 2018) and empirical studies have shown an association between ecstasy use and APS (Duman et al., 2017; Wiedmann, Kuitunen-Paul, et al., 2022), as well as ecstasy use and PTSD (Basedow et al., 2022; Basedow, Kuitunen-Paul, Wiedmann, et al., 2021). One reason for this discrepancy might be the specific form of assessment and inclusion criteria applied in our study. First, our main outcome variable (PQ-16 score) only assesses APS occurrence in the past month. Second, patients with acute psychotic state were not admitted to our clinic, excluding them from participation in this study. Therefore, it is possible that substance-induced APS are indeed rare and instead substance use is more strongly related to fully developed psychotic symptoms.

However, when investigating the substance-specific relationship between use frequency and APS, we found no association between ecstasy use (or other substances for that matter) and APS scores in our data. This is a further indication, that APS might be specifically related to the presence of PTSD, while fully developed psychotic syndromes might be more reliably induced by substance use.

This conclusion is also in line with previous research that has shown that TEs in childhood and subsequent PTSD increase the risk of experiencing APS (Frydecka et al., 2020; Hodgekins et al., 2018; Varese et al., 2012) and are a stronger predictor of APS than substance use (Mongan et al., 2019). The association of PTSD with APS in patients with SUD might be mediated by symptoms of borderline personality disorder, disturbances of self (e.g. depersonalisation or derealization) and cognitive biases, all of which have been associated with APS (Gawęda et al., 2019; Pionke-Ubych et al., 2021; Sengutta et al., 2019). Specifically, disturbed social processes and attachment issues as seen in borderline personality disorders are also prevalent in SUDs (Gąsior, 2018; Hanegraaf et al., 2021) while cognitive biases play a major role in the development of SUDs (McCusker, 2001) and are an important target for novel SUD interventions (Cristea et al., 2016; Wiers et al., 2013). These connections support the notion that PTSD induces alterations in social and cognitive processes that in turn increase the likelihood of subsequent APS and SUD development, therefore indicating that APS in adolescent patients with SUD might reflect a presence of PTSD rather than a prodromal substance-induced psychosis. This line of reasoning is supported by other research indicating that APS are not necessarily an indication of clinically verified psychotic experience but can be seen as more general markers of psychopathology (Moriyama et al., 2019).

4.1. Limitations

First, this study is an analysis of cross-sectional data prohibiting us from drawing any causal inference. Accordingly, we describe two opposing potential explanations for our findings and propose that future studies assess PTSD symptoms, APS, and substance use continuously and longitudinally to investigate causal pathways. Especially important are assessments that allow conclusions about times of symptom (PTSD, SUD and APS) onset and the timing of TEs.

Second, the groups differ in terms of their gender distribution. While we aimed to correct for this imbalance using appropriate statistical methods, this might indicate that the groups differ in additional socio-demographic aspects we have not assessed.

Third, APS might lead to and overlap with substance-induced psychotic symptoms and psychoses. Especially in genetically vulnerable adolescents, the use of psychoactive substances such as cannabis, ecstasy, or methamphetamine could contribute to such symptoms and diagnoses (Beckmann et al., 2020). However, none of our SUD outpatients presented acute psychotic symptoms. Even if, these patients would have been transferred to acute inpatient treatment. Lacking these patients thus increases the chance to miss an otherwise present association between SUD, PTSD and APS.

4.2. Clinical implications

Our results indicate that, in adolescent patients that report APS and co-occurring substance use, an assessment of TEs and PTSD is always indicated for a proper differential diagnosis. An integrated treatment of PTSD and SUD is not only warranted given the high comorbidity (Kuitunen-Paul et al., 2021; Wiedmann, Atzendorf, et al., 2022), it may also be possible, albeit this hast to be tested, that that APS might be indirectly alleviated by an integrated treatment of SUD and PTSD. A psychotherapeutic approach integrating therapy for symptoms from different disorders is even more important, given that pharmacological treatment options for either of these disorders and symptoms are heavily limited (Cohen et al., 2010).

5. Conclusion

APS in adolescents with SUD seem to be more strongly related to PTSD symptom than substance use. PTSD and a strong prevalence of TEs might be a better explanation for the occurrence of APS in adolescents with SUD than the frequency or type of substance use. Clinicians should take care to exclude the possibility of APS being related to a presence of PTSD when suspecting a case of substance-induced psychosis.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All procedures of this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital C. G. Carus Dresden (EK 66022018). Patients as well as legal guardians were informed about the projects thoroughly and comprehensively. Written informed consent was obtained from all legal guardians.

Acknowledgements

We thank the SMWK for providing funding and resources to conduct this study.

Funding Statement

The Sächsische Aufbaubank -Förderbank-, (grant 100362999 to YG), funded this study. The funding body had no role in designing the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the data, or writing the manuscript. Open access funding provided by the Open Access Publishing Fund of Philipps-Universität Marburg with support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation).

Author Contribution

LAB analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. MFW participated in writing the manuscript, data analysis, and contributed to the discussion. VR and SKP participated in writing the manuscript and contributed to discussion. YG designed the study, participated in writing the manuscript and contributed to discussion.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author (LAB) on reasonable request.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association & American Psychiatric Association . (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arango, C. (2011). Attenuated psychotic symptoms syndrome: How it may affect child and adolescent psychiatry. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(2), 67–70. 10.1007/s00787-010-0144-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Arbeitsgruppe Deutsche Child Behavior Checklist . (1998). Fragebogen für Jugendliche; deutsche Bearbeitung der Youth Self- Report Form der Child Behavior Checklist (YSR). (2nd ed.). Arbe- itsgruppe Kinder-, Jugend- und Familiendiagnostik (KJFD).
  4. Baeza, I., Graell, M., Moreno, D., Castro-Fornieles, J., Parellada, M., González-Pinto, A., Payá, B., Soutullo, C., de la Serna, E., & Arango, C. (2009). Cannabis use in children and adolescents with first episode psychosis: Influence on psychopathology and short-term outcome (CAFEPS study). Schizophrenia Research, 113(2), 129–137. 10.1016/j.schres.2009.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Basedow, L. A., Kuitunen-Paul, S., Eichler, A., Roessner, V., & Golub, Y. (2021). Diagnostic accuracy of the drug use disorder identification test and its short form, the DUDIT-C, in German adolescent psychiatric patients. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.678819 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Basedow, L. A., Kuitunen-Paul, S., Roessner, V., & Golub, Y. (2020). Traumatic events and substance use disorders in adolescents. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Basedow, L. A., Kuitunen-Paul, S., Wiedmann, M. F., Roessner, V., & Golub, Y. (2021). Self-reported PTSD is associated with increased use of MDMA in adolescents with substance use disorders. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 12(1), 1968140. 10.1080/20008198.2021.1968140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Basedow, L. A., Wiedmann, M. F., Roessner, V., Golub, Y., & Kuitunen-Paul, S. (2022). Coping motives mediate the relationship between PTSD and MDMA use in adolescents with substance use disorders. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 17(1), 46. 10.1186/s13722-022-00329-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beckmann, D., Lowman, K. L., Nargiso, J., McKowen, J., Watt, L., & Yule, A. M. (2020). Substance-induced psychosis in youth. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 29(1), 131–143. 10.1016/j.chc.2019.08.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Statistics notes: Multiple significance tests: The Bonferroni method. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 310(6973), 170. 10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brunette, M. F., Mueser, K. T., Babbin, S., Meyer-Kalos, P., Rosenheck, R., Correll, C. U., Cather, C., Robinson, D. G., Schooler, N. R., Penn, D. L., Addington, J., Estroff, S. E., Gottlieb, J., Glynn, S. M., Marcy, P., Robinson, J., & Kane, J. M. (2018). Demographic and clinical correlates of substance use disorders in first episode psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 194, 4–12. 10.1016/j.schres.2017.06.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Carney, R., Yung, A. R., Amminger, G. P., Bradshaw, T., Glozier, N., Hermens, D. F., Hickie, I. B., Killackey, E., McGorry, P., Pantelis, C., Wood, S. J., & Purcell, R. (2017). Substance use in youth at risk for psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 181, 23–29. 10.1016/j.schres.2016.08.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed., reprint). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohen, J. A., Bukstein, O., Walter, H., Benson, S. R., Chrisman, A., Farchione, T. R., Hamilton, J., Keable, H., Kinlan, J., Schoettle, U., Siegel, M., Stock, S., Medicus, J., & AACAP Work Group On Quality Issues . (2010). Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(4), 414–430. 10.1016/j.jaac.2009.12.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cristea, I. A., Kok, R. N., & Cuijpers, P. (2016). The effectiveness of cognitive bias modification interventions for substance addictions: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 11(9), e0162226. 10.1371/journal.pone.0162226 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. de Jong, Y., Mulder, C. L., Boon, A., Coenders, E., & van der Gaag, M. (2020). Cross validation of the prodromal questionnaire 16-item version in an adolescent help-seeking population. Schizophrenia Bulletin Open, 1(1), Article sgaa033. 10.1093/schizbullopen/sgaa033 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Duman, B., Sedes, N., & Baskak, B. (2017). Additive effects of former methylenedioxymethamphetamine and cannabis Use on subclinical psychotic symptoms. Noro Psikiyatri Arsivi, 54(1), 38–42. 10.5152/npa.2017.16964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Elhai, J. D., Layne, C. M., Steinberg, A. M., Brymer, M. J., Briggs, E. C., Ostrowski, S. A., & Pynoos, R. S. (2013). Psychometric properties of the UCLA PTSD reaction index. part II: Investigating factor structure findings in a national clinic-referred youth sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 10–18. 10.1002/jts.21755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Falukozi, E., & Addington, J. (2012). Impact of trauma on attenuated psychotic symptoms. Psychosis, 4(3), 203–212. 10.1080/17522439.2011.626867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Frydecka, D., Misiak, B., Kotowicz, K., Pionke, R., Krężołek, M., Cechnicki, A., & Gawęda, Ł. (2020). The interplay between childhood trauma, cognitive biases, and cannabis use on the risk of psychosis in nonclinical young adults in Poland. European Psychiatry, 63(1), e35. 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.31 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fusar-Poli, P., Borgwardt, S., Bechdolf, A., Addington, J., Riecher-Rössler, A., Schultze-Lutter, F., Keshavan, M., Wood, S., Ruhrmann, S., Seidman, L. J., Valmaggia, L., Cannon, T., Velthorst, E., De Haan, L., Cornblatt, B., Bonoldi, I., Birchwood, M., McGlashan, T., Carpenter, W., … Yung, A. (2013). The psychosis high-risk state. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(1), 107–120. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.269 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fusar-Poli, P., Cappucciati, M., Borgwardt, S., Woods, S. W., Addington, J., Nelson, B., Nieman, D. H., Stahl, D. R., Rutigliano, G., Riecher-Rössler, A., Simon, A. E., Mizuno, M., Lee, T. Y., Kwon, J. S., Lam, M. M. L., Perez, J., Keri, S., Amminger, P., Metzler, S., … McGuire, P. K. (2016). Heterogeneity of psychosis risk within individuals at clinical high risk: A meta-analytical stratification. JAMA Psychiatry, 73(2), 113–120. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.2324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fusar-Poli, P., Raballo, A., & Parnas, J. (2017). What Is an attenuated psychotic symptom? On the importance of the context. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 43(4), 687–692. 10.1093/schbul/sbw182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fusar-Poli, P., Tantardini, M., De Simone, S., Ramella-Cravaro, V., Oliver, D., Kingdon, J., Kotlicka-Antczak, M., Valmaggia, L., Lee, J., Millan, M. J., Galderisi, S., Balottin, U., Ricca, V., & McGuire, P. (2017). Deconstructing vulnerability for psychosis: Meta-analysis of environmental risk factors for psychosis in subjects at ultra high-risk. European Psychiatry, 40, 65–75. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gąsior, K. (2018). The links between posttraumatic stress, attachment patterns and quality of life in incarcerated and addicted women. The role of resilience. Psychiatria Polska, 52(6), 1113–1125. 10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/76823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gaudiano, B. A., & Zimmerman, M. (2012). Prevalence of attenuated psychotic symptoms and their relationship with DSM-IV diagnoses in a general psychiatric outpatient clinic. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 73(2), 15357. 10.4088/JCP.12m07788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gawęda, Ł, Göritz, A. S., & Moritz, S. (2019). Mediating role of aberrant salience and self-disturbances for the relationship between childhood trauma and psychotic-like experiences in the general population. Schizophrenia Research, 206, 149–156. 10.1016/j.schres.2018.11.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Golub, Y., Basedow, L. A., Meiron Zwipp, J., Kuitunen-Paul, S., & Roessner, V. (2021). DELTA - Dresdner Multimodale Therapie für Jugendliche mit chronischem Suchtmittelkonsum (1st ed.). Hogrefe AG. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hanegraaf, L., van Baal, S., Hohwy, J., & Verdejo-Garcia, A. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of ‘systems for social processes’ in borderline personality and substance use disorders. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 127, 572–592. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.04.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hodgekins, J., Lower, R., Wilson, J., Cole, H., Ugochukwu, U., Maxwell, S., & Fowler, D. (2018). Clinician-rated and self-reported psychotic-like experiences in individuals accessing a specialist youth mental health service. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(3), 367–381. 10.1111/bjc.12178 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Holtzman, C. W., Trotman, H. D., Goulding, S. M., Ryan, A. T., Macdonald, A. N., Shapiro, D. I., Brasfield, J. L., & Walker, E. F. (2013). Stress and neurodevelopmental processes in the emergence of psychosis. Neuroscience, 249, 172–191. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.12.017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. IBM, Corp . (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (27.0). [Computer software]. IBM Corp.
  33. Ising, H. K., Veling, W., Loewy, R. L., Rietveld, M. W., Rietdijk, J., Dragt, S., Klaassen, R. M. C., Nieman, D. H., Wunderink, L., Linszen, D. H., & van der Gaag, M. (2012). The validity of the 16-item version of the prodromal questionnaire (PQ-16) to screen for ultra high risk of developing psychosis in the general help-seeking population. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(6), 1288–1296. 10.1093/schbul/sbs068 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kelleher, I., Harley, M., Lynch, F., Arseneault, L., Fitzpatrick, C., & Cannon, M. (2008). Associations between childhood trauma, bullying and psychotic symptoms among a school-based adolescent sample. British Journal of Psychiatry, 193(5), 378–382. 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.049536 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kuitunen-Paul, S., Roessner, V., Basedow, L. A., & Golub, Y. (2021). Beyond the tip of the iceberg: A narrative review to identify research gaps on comorbid psychiatric disorders in adolescents with methamphetamine use disorder or chronic methamphetamine use. Substance Abuse, 42(1), 13–32. 10.1080/08897077.2020.1806183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Loewy, R. L., Bearden, C. E., Johnson, J. K., Raine, A., & Cannon, T. D. (2005). The prodromal questionnaire (PQ): Preliminary validation of a self-report screening measure for prodromal and psychotic syndromes. Schizophrenia Research, 79(1), 117–125. 10.1016/j.schres.2005.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Majić, T., Brandt, L., & Montag, C. (2022). Anxiety-related symptoms following the sporadic use of ecstasy – a case study. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 54(0), 378–385. 10.1080/02791072.2021.2006372 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Matheson, S. L., Laurie, M., & Laurens, K. R. (2022). Substance use and psychotic-like experiences in young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 1–15. 10.1017/S0033291722003440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. McCrory, E., Foulkes, L., & Viding, E. (2022). Social thinning and stress generation after childhood maltreatment: A neurocognitive social transactional model of psychiatric vulnerability. The Lancet Psychiatry, Article S2215-0366(22)00202-4. 10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00202-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. McCusker, C. G. (2001). Cognitive biases and addiction: An evolution in theory and method. Addiction, 96(1), 47–56. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961474.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McGlashan, T., Walsh, B., Woods, S., McGlashan, T., Walsh, B., & Woods, S. (2010). The psychosis-risk syndrome: Handbook for diagnosis and follow-up. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mongan, D., Shannon, C., Hanna, D., Boyd, A., & Mulholland, C. (2019). The association between specific types of childhood adversity and attenuated psychotic symptoms in a community sample. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 13(2), 281–289. 10.1111/eip.12478 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Moriyama, T. S., van Os, J., Gadelha, A., Pan, P. M., Salum, G. A., Manfro, G. G., Mari, J. d. J., Miguel, E. C., Rohde, L. A., Polanczyk, G. V., McGuire, P., Bressan, R. A., & Drukker, M. (2019). Differences between self-reported psychotic experiences, clinically relevant psychotic experiences, and attenuated psychotic symptoms in the general population. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10. 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Oswald, S. H., Fegert, J. M., & Goldbeck, L. (2010). Traumafolgestörungen bei Pflegekindern nach Misshandlung und Vernachlässigung. Verhaltenstherapie, 20(1), 37–44. 10.1159/000274622 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pionke-Ubych, R., Frydecka, D., Cechnicki, A., Nelson, B., & Gawęda, Ł. (2021). The indirect effect of trauma via cognitive biases and self-disturbances on psychotic-like experiences. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 611069. 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.611069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Rosen, J. L., Miller, T. J., D’Andrea, J. T., McGlashan, T. H., & Woods, S. W. (2006). Comorbid diagnoses in patients meeting criteria for the schizophrenia prodrome. Schizophrenia Research, 85(1), 124–131. 10.1016/j.schres.2006.03.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ruf, M., Schauer, M., & Elbert, T. (2011). UPID: UCLA PTSD Index for DSM IV (Child version, revision 1, deutsche Fassung). https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/18103
  48. Salazar de Pablo, G., Catalan, A., & Fusar-Poli, P. (2020). Clinical validity of DSM-5 attenuated psychosis syndrome: Advances in diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. JAMA Psychiatry, 77(3), 311–320. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.3561 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schimmelmann, B. G., Conus, P., Cotton, S., Kupferschmid, S., McGorry, P. D., & Lambert, M. (2012). Prevalence and impact of cannabis use disorders in adolescents with early onset first episode psychosis. European Psychiatry, 27(6), 463–469. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Scott, J. G., Nurcombe, B., Sheridan, J., & McFarland, M. (2007). Hallucinations in adolescents with post-traumatic stress disorder and psychotic disorder. Australasian Psychiatry, 15(1), 44–48. 10.1080/10398560601083084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Sengutta, M., Gawęda, Ł, Moritz, S., & Karow, A. (2019). The mediating role of borderline personality features in the relationship between childhood trauma and psychotic-like experiences in a sample of help-seeking non-psychotic adolescents and young adults. European Psychiatry, 56(1), 84–90. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Simon, A. E., Umbricht, D., Lang, U. E., & Borgwardt, S. (2014). Declining transition rates to psychosis: The role of diagnostic spectra and symptom overlaps in individuals with attenuated psychosis syndrome. Schizophrenia Research, 159(2), 292–298. 10.1016/j.schres.2014.09.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Smith, M. J., Thirthalli, J., Abdallah, A. B., Murray, R. M., & Cottler, L. B. (2009). Prevalence of psychotic symptoms in substance users: A comparison across substances. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 50(3), 245–250. 10.1016/j.comppsych.2008.07.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Steinberg, A. M., Brymer, M. J., Decker, K. B., & Pynoos, R. S. (2004). The University of California at Los Angeles post-traumatic stress disorder reaction index. Current Psychiatry Reports, 6(2), 96–100. 10.1007/s11920-004-0048-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Steinberg, A. M., Brymer, M. J., Kim, S., Briggs, E. C., Ippen, C. G., Ostrowski, S. A., Gully, K. J., & Pynoos, R. S. (2013). Psychometric properties of the UCLA PTSD reaction index: Part I. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 26(1), 1–9. 10.1002/jts.21780 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Vaiva, G., Boss, V., Bailly, D., Thomas, P., Lestavel, P., & Goudemand, M. (2001). An “accidental” acute psychosis with ecstasy use. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 33(1), 95–98. 10.1080/02791072.2001.10400473 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Varese, F., Smeets, F., Drukker, M., Lieverse, R., Lataster, T., Viechtbauer, W., Read, J., van Os, J., & Bentall, R. P. (2012). Childhood adversities increase the risk of psychosis: A meta-analysis of patient-control, prospective- and cross-sectional cohort studies. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(4), 661–671. 10.1093/schbul/sbs050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Virani, S., Daya, G. N., Brainch, N., Kotapati, V. P., Zaveri, D., & Ahmed, S. (2018). Persistent psychosis due to single dose of ecstasy. Cureus, 10(7), 10.7759/cureus.3058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Voluse, A. C., Gioia, C. J., Sobell, L. C., Dum, M., Sobell, M. B., & Simco, E. R. (2012). Psychometric properties of the drug use disorders identification Test (DUDIT) with substance abusers in outpatient and residential treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 37(1), 36–41. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.07.030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Werbeloff, N., Drukker, M., Dohrenwend, B. P., Levav, I., Yoffe, R., van Os, J., Davidson, M., & Weiser, M. (2012). Self-reported attenuated psychotic symptoms as forerunners of severe mental disorders later in life. Archives of General Psychiatry, 69(5), 467–475. 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.1580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wiedmann, M. F., Atzendorf, J., Basedow, L. A., Roessner, V., Golub, Y., & Kuitunen-Paul, S. (2022). Substanzkonsum, Störungen durch Substanzkonsum und begleitende psychische Störungen bei Jugendlichen. Zeitschrift Für Kinder- Und Jugendpsychiatrie Und Psychotherapie. 10.1024/1422-4917/a000846 [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Wiedmann, M. F., Kuitunen-Paul, S., Basedow, L. A., Roessner, V., & Golub, Y. (2022). Attenuated psychotic symptoms in adolescents with chronic cannabis and MDMA use. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.696133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Wiers, R. W., Gladwin, T. E., Hofmann, W., Salemink, E., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2013). Cognitive bias modification and cognitive control training in addiction and related psychopathology: Mechanisms, clinical perspectives, and ways forward. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2), 192–212. 10.1177/2167702612466547 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author (LAB) on reasonable request.

Articles from European Journal of Psychotraumatology are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES