Integration and development in schizotypy research : an introduction to the special supplement

In its fifth decade of existence, the construct of schizotypy is recapturing the early scientific interest it attracted when Paul E. Meehl (1920-2003), who coined the term, pioneered the field of schizotypy research. The International Lemanic Workshop on Schizotypy, hosted at the University of Geneva in December 2013, recently offered an opportunity to address some of the fundamental questions in contemporary schizotypy research and situate the construct in the greater scheme of future scientific projects on schizophrenia and psychological health research. What kind of knowledge has schizotypy research provided in furthering our understanding of schizophrenia? What types of questions can schizotypy research tackle, and which are the conceptual and methodological frameworks to address them? How will schizotypy research contribute to future scientific endeavors? The International Lemanic Workshop brought together leading experts in the field around the tasks of articulating the essential findings in schizotypy research, as well as providing some key insights and guidance to face scientific challenges of the future. The current supplement contains 8 position articles, 4 research articles, and 1 invited commentary that outline the state of the art in schizotypy research today

Comparative analysis of ten assesment grids of quality criteria in qualitative research

The authors present 10 grids which are widely used in Health Sciences for the assessment of quality in research. They proceed through a comparative thematic analysis of these grids and show which points of view are preferred. They insist on the issues that differentiate these grids from each other and suggest the analysis of their differences by distinguishing the theoretical perspectives that underpin each one of these grids. Whilst the authors of the assessment grids rarely refer to the implicit theoretical backgrounds that guide their work, findings show that these grids convey varied epistemologies and research models. This gap renders the comparison of quality assessment in qualitative research a very difficult task, unless we shift our focus on the relationship between the grids, their theoretical backgrounds and their specific research subjects.

Not in Education, Employment, or Training status among young Swiss men. Longitudinal associations with mental health and substance use.

PURPOSE: Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEET) youth are youth disengaged from major social institutions and constitute a worrying concern. However, little is known about this subgroup of vulnerable youth. This study aimed to examine if NEET youth differ from other contemporaries in terms of personality, mental health, and substance use and to provide longitudinal examination of NEET status, testing its stability and prospective pathways with mental health and substance use. METHODS: As part of the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors, 4,758 young Swiss men in their early 20s answered questions concerning their current professional and educational status, personality, substance use, and symptomatology related to mental health. Descriptive statistics, generalized linear models for cross-sectional comparisons, and cross-lagged panel models for longitudinal associations were computed. RESULTS: NEET youth were 6.1% at baseline and 7.4% at follow-up with 1.4% being NEET at both time points. Comparisons between NEET and non-NEET youth showed significant differences in substance use and depressive symptoms only. Longitudinal associations showed that previous mental health, cannabis use, and daily smoking increased the likelihood of being NEET. Reverse causal paths were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: NEET status seemed to be unlikely and transient among young Swiss men, associated with differences in mental health and substance use but not in personality. Causal paths presented NEET status as a consequence of mental health and substance use rather than a cause. Additionally, this study confirmed that cannabis use and daily smoking are public health problems. Prevention programs need to focus on these vulnerable youth to avoid them being disengaged.

Disagreements among cohabiting and married couples in 22 European countries

Background: Cross-national research suggests that married people have higher levels of well-being than cohabiting people. However, relationship quality has both positive and negative dimensions. Researchers have paid little attention to disagreements within cohabiting and married couples. Objective: This study aims to improve our understanding of the meaning of cohabitation by examining disagreements within marital and cohabiting relationships. We examine variations in couples' disagreements about housework, paid work and money by country and gender. Methods: The data come from the 2004 European Social Survey. We selected respondents living in a heterosexual couple relationship and aged between 18 and 45. In total, the study makes use of data from 22 European countries and 9,657 people. Given that our dependent variable was dichotomous, we estimated multilevel logit models, with (1) disagree and (0) never disagree. Results: We find that cohabitors had more disagreements about housework, the same disagreements about money, but fewer disagreements about paid work than did married people. These findings could not be explained by socio-economic or demographic measures, nor did we find gender or cross-country differences in the association between union status and conflict. Conclusions: Cohabiting couples have more disagreements about housework but fewer disagreements about paid work than married people. There are no gender or cross-country differences in these associations. The results provide further evidence that the meaning of cohabitation differs from that of marriage, and that this difference remains consistent across nations.