Link

@bradleyvoytek: My (off the cuff) view on the “most interesting” neuroscience papers from 2011: b.qr.ae/uz0zKw (on @Quora)

Advertisements

Link

Back to overview
14:00-16:05, Sunday, 04 September 2011
Symposia

14:00-16:05
S.05:    Treatment track 
Psychosis Risk Syndrome (PRS) – identification, neurobiology and intervention
Chairs: Jan K. Buitelaar, The Netherlands
Mara Parellada, Spain
Grand Amphi

14:00
S.05.01  Clinical characteristics and definitions Paper: S.05.01
Christoph Correll, USA

14:25
S.05.02  Cognitive and information processing approaches Paper: S.05.02
Sophia Frangou, United Kingdom

14:50
S.05.03  Cognitive-behaviour therapy interventions in PRS: short-term and long-term outcomes Paper: S.05.03
Andreas Bechdolf, Germany

15:15
S.05.04  The social brain: social disability, cognitive deficits and event-related potentials in PRS Paper: S.05.04
Lieuwe de Haan, The Netherlands

15:40
S.05.05  Prevention strategies
Celso Arango, Spain

Link

Back to overview
14:00-16:05, Tuesday, 06 September 2011
Symposia


14:00-16:05
S.21:  TEM symposium – Early intervention in schizophrenia: how early is too late?
Chairs: Shitij Kapur, United Kingdom
Philip K. McGuire, United Kingdom


14:00
S.21.01  Neuroimaging studies: the neural mechanisms underlying the onset of psychosis Paper: S.21.01
Paolo Fusar-Poli, Italy


14:25
S.21.02  Genetics and neurological signs – do they help choose whom to intervene in and how
Marie Odile Krebs, France
 ABSTRACT NOT AVAILABLE


14:50
S.21.03  Clinical staging and related interventions in the treatment of psychosis – the idea and the evidence Paper: S.21.03
Patrick D. McGorry, Australia


15:15
S.21.04  Intensive intervention in first episode of psychosis – does it make a difference in the long term and for whom? Paper: S.21.04
Merete Nordentoft, Denmark


15:40
S.21.05  Beyond controlling symptoms in first episode – subjective well-being, recovery and remission Paper: S.21.05
Dieter Naber, Germany


Link

Recent NYT article (“A schizophrenic, a slain worker, troubling questions”) underscores the need for systems of care: “If we don’t get funding, we’re either on the street, in prison, dead or rather be dead.”

Comment (links added) by Mark Zanger, Boston, MA (June 18, 2011):

A brilliant article with an unfortunate headline. We try to describe people with illness as “person with” rather have them a walking label: a schizophrenic, a cancerous, a diabetic, an autistic. Rather we can say, a person with schizophrenia, or a man with cancer, or a woman with diabetes, or a child with an autism disorder. This reminds us that people with issues, even alleged murderers, are people first and dealing with illness from a position of person-hood. An issue that might have been explored in the article is the right to refuse treatment versus measures of civil commitment used on persons with paranoid schizophrenia and a history of violence, such as “Kendra’s Law” in New York. Massachusetts does not have a measure of this kind, and is unlikely to pass one even in the wake of this horrible and not entirely isolated incident. The New Yorker has just run a very moving article on the price of “right to refuse” for one woman with schizophrenia; the New York Review of Books is in the middle of a two-part review of three books questioning the validity of existing medical treatment for mental illness. Let’s not leave civil commitment to the Post or the Wall Street Journal, eh?