Sonja Werneck-Rohrer

Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Vienna, Austria

Are you Sonja Werneck-Rohrer?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)21.22 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective:Most data on duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) derives from high-income countries. An inverse relationship between DUP and income and a longer DUP in low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries has been reported. The aim of this study was to compare DUP in a high-income country with that in a LAMI country using the same methodology.Methods:The sample consisted of in- and outpatients, aged 15-35 years for the Vienna site and 18-35 years for the Pakistani sites, with first-episode psychosis (FEP). DUP was evaluated using psychiatric interviews, medical charts and the Nottingham Onset Schedule. Differentiated reporting of duration of untreated illness (DUI) from prodrome to start of treatment, and DUP from manifest psychotic symptoms to start of treatment was ensured. Primary outcome measures, DUI and DUP, were measured at a 0.025 level of significance.Results:Thirty-one FEP patients in Vienna (mean age 20.03 years, SD 4.2) and 60 FEP patients from the Pakistani sites (mean age 26.15 years, SD 5.29) participated. The mean age in Vienna was younger due to the different age range inclusion criteria. The severity of psychopathology was more pronounced in the Pakistani sample. Log DUP was significantly different between groups (i.e. longer in the Pakistani sample (p=0.001)). Log DUI showed a trend for longer duration in the Vienna sample; however, this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.036). The severity of positive psychotic symptoms was associated with length of DUI in both regions.Conclusion:The longer DUP in Pakistan confirms the need to provide affordable treatment for psychosis for young FEP patients in Pakistan and in other LAMI countries. The relatively long period from prodrome to treatment initiation in both regions underlines the need to further establish low-threshold early intervention strategies in order to increase detection rates and reduce factors limiting patients seeking treatment.
    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 09/2013; 47(12). DOI:10.1177/0004867413504472 · 3.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Problems in the perception of emotional material, in particular deficits in the recognition of negative stimuli, have been demonstrated in schizophrenia including in first-episode samples. However, it is largely unknown if emotion recognition impairment is present in people with subthreshold psychotic symptoms. Here, we examined the capacity to recognize facially expressed emotion and affective prosody in 79 individuals at ultra high-risk for psychosis, 30 clinically stable individuals with first-episode schizophrenia assessed as outpatients during the early recovery phase of illness, and 30 unaffected healthy control subjects. We compared (1) scores for a combined fear-sadness aggregate index across face and voice modalities, (2) summary scores of specific emotions across modalities, and (3) scores for specific emotions for each sensory modality. Findings supported deficits in recognition of fear and sadness across both modalities for the clinical groups (the ultra high-risk and first-episode group) as compared with the healthy controls. Furthermore, planned contrasts indicated that compared with the healthy control subjects, both clinical groups had a significant deficit for fear and sadness recognition in faces and for anger recognition in voices. Specific impairments in emotion recognition may be apparent in people at clinical high-risk for schizophrenia before the full expression of psychotic illness. The results suggest a trait deficit and an involvement of the amygdala in the pathology of ultra high-risk states.
    Schizophrenia Bulletin 03/2011; 38(5):1030-9. DOI:10.1093/schbul/sbr015 · 8.61 Impact Factor
  • Schizophrenia Research 10/2006; 86. DOI:10.1016/S0920-9964(06)70283-3 · 4.43 Impact Factor
  • Schizophrenia Research 10/2006; 86. DOI:10.1016/S0920-9964(06)70333-4 · 4.43 Impact Factor