The gender differences demonstrated in the study suggest gender specific treatment interventions in order to provide optimal treatment for both male and female patients.

During recent decades, the field of treatment of schizophrenia has lacked empirical, systematic outcome studies that support psychodynamic psychotherapy as an evidence-based intervention for patients with schizophrenia. The Danish schizophrenia project (DNS) compared psychodynamic psychotherapy for psychosis with standard treatment in patients with a first-episode schizophrenia spectrum disorder. The study was designed as a prospective, comparative, longitudinal multi-site investigation of consecutively referred patients who were included during two years. The patients were treated with either manualized individual supportive psychodynamic psychotherapy (SPP) in addition to treatment as usual or with treatment as usual alone (TaU). Symptoms and functional outcomes were measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning scale (GAF). The study included 269 consecutively admitted patients, age 18-35, of whom 79% remained in the study after two years. The intervention group improved significantly on measures of both PANSS and GAF scores, with large effect sizes at two years follow-up after inclusion. Further, improvement on GAF(function) (p = 0.000) and GAF(symptom) (p = 0.010) significantly favored SPP in combination with TaU over TaU alone. In spite of limitations, this study speaks in favor of including supportive psychodynamic psychotherapy in the treatment for patients with schizophrenic first-episode psychoses.

Integrated treatment and supportive psychodynamic psychotherapy in addition to treatment as usual may improve outcome after 1 year of treatment for people with first-episode psychosis, compared with treatment as usual alone.

No abstract

677 active members of the bricklayers' trade union in Aarhus have been investigated with regard to unemployment and hospitalization during the period April 1, 1972-March 31, 1978. Information concerning unemployment was obtained through the bricklayers' trade union, and information about hospitalization from the hospital administration registry of three counties of Northern Jutland and from the Danish Central Psychiatric Register. Using logit analysis it was found that admission to a hospital increased the risk of unemployment, and that unemployment increased the risk of hospitalization. Admission to a psychiatric department appeared within a latency period of 0-1 years. A latency period of 1/2-11/2 years was observed before admission to a medical department. Admission to a surgical department occurred 1/2-21/2 years after accumulated unemployment. The risk of admission to a psychiatric department was seven times as high for bricklayers who have been unemployed more than 50% of the time compared with those who have been unemployed less of the time, although the calculation was based on relatively few individuals. The risk of admission to medical wards was twice as high, and the risk of admission to surgical wards was almost twice as high among those with much unemployment.

A random sample of active members from the bricklayers’ trade union in Aarhus was interviewed and MMPI tested. Unemployment data were collected up to six years previous to the date of interview. For the same period the number of days of absence due to illness, additional education, military service etc. (out days) were registered. The bricklayers were distributed according to age, marital status and unemployment. For the 14 basic validity and clinical scales of the MMPI, the relations between the score and the three variables were examined. Several scales had scores correlated to unemployment.

Karterud's version of a modern textbook of group analysis goes through the history and sources of inspiration of group analysis in a systematic and well worked-out way, as well as going through some of the perspectives outlined in the theory and practice of group-analytical development. Special emphasis is given to the important contribution of self-psychology to group analysis.As an experienced group-analyst I find the book extremely enriching and comprehensive, with a well-planned structure and a language close to what is usual in the clinical work. For instance, I was glad to see that the author respectfully considers other theories and takes a clear attitude towards them.The book is divided into nine parts. In the first part -the first 90 pages -Karterud goes through Foulkes's development of group analysis with respect to theory through his books, practice in his groups, and organization through his construction of a network in a practical as well as literary way. He brings about the context in which he worked. Karterud documents how Foulkes had difficulty in developing a new radical theory, group analysis, while at the same time he remained faithful to traditional psychoanalysis. This gave rise to a lack of theoretical consistency, which was not treated seriously and openly until by Karterud (and Dalal, 1998).The second part of the book -75 pages -describes how group analysis has managed its development, for instance in relation to Bion and other Kleinians, in relation to large group dynamics, therapeutical community, systems-centred theory, family therapy, Jungian theory, object relations theory, attachment theory, philosophy, analysis of discourse, and finally self psychology. Finally a view is given of the development and spreading of group analysis in practice from London to Europe especially.In the third part of the book -55 pages -Karterud analyses the development of psychodynamic group psychotherapy from the USA and how this differs from group analysis and how it contributes to group analysis. Especially he focuses on Dorothy Stock Whitaker and 'group focal conflict theory', and shows how her theory and group analysis are related. In this part of the book he also goes through Yalom's great importance for group psychotherapy and his influence on group analysis. Karterud in the first three parts of the book covers many aspects, is very systematic and rather often holds the various theories and their authors up against his own opinion. This serves as a basis for the concentrated theoretical addition in part 8. This was for me the most exiting section and this is also Karterud's favourite issue, namely the contribution of self-psychology to the development of group analysis.

AimsTo describe the rationale, design and methods of the Danish national Schoizophrenia Project, and to characterise the sample at inclusion and after 1 and 2 ys.MethodProspective, comparative,longitudinal multicenter-study (16 centers distributed all over Denmark), including 562 patients with a first episode psychosis, ICD 10 F- 2, sduccessively referred during two years.Patients were treated with three different intervention types1. supportive psychodynamic as a supplement to treatmen as usual, including antipsychotics (TAU), 2. assertive, integrated treatment with psychosocial and psychoeducation and antipsychotics 3. Treatment as usual. Data included psychopathology, social fundtion and sociodemographic data, at baseline, years 1 and 2.ResultComparing the three interventions showed a significantly better outcome for the interventions 1 and 2 than 3, TAU.