The survey referred to them as “causes” - I even added a comment saying that what they were describing were “triggers”.
The thrust of the survey indicated that they were proposing this as a new diagnostic model. Like I said, I think that it can provide some auxiliary information and highlight trends, but as a diagnostic model, it fails.
I think it’s a work in progress, but a nice start, that’s why the comment section is there, so we can give input. I don’t believe it’s concluded, hence I’m not able to draw any conclusions. I found it very captivating, shows willingness to be open minded about the triggers of psychosis.
I suppose it’s nice to be asked about it, instead of having the doctors working above our heads like our opinions are irrelevant.
Hi All,
Its morning over here and just woken up to read this thread - I’m so excited that you have been discussing the subgroups!
The aim behind my research is to examine the validity and utility of diagnosis, using the subgroups as an alternative for discussion to look at what is important and useful for people. This survey forms one of five parts of my research, another of which is indepth face to face interviews with experts by experience in Southampton. The themes in this thread are duplicating some of the ideas that have come up so far (which is doubly exciting for me). I agree the subgroups may not be perfect - which is why we want to look at what is good and also not good so maybe one day we can get to something closer to perfect.
I really appreciate you all giving your time and opinions - the second round of the survey will be coming out in a few weeks time and we will of course be letting people who took part know the results (and also what the experts by profession thought). Maybe I could post on here too, although it may not be for a while 
Yes, for me it’s all the above.
I think anxiety? Being in large groups or crowds of people messes up my symptoms.
I don’t fit BPD either but I still chose that group because it fit otherwise. Not sure subgroups are the answer.
i havent been diagnosed with anything other than para/sz but i also have anxiety and i i use to be very sensitive, there may be some trauma but i dont talk about that, are these sub groups?
Same here. I was previously diagnosed with Social Anxiety Disorder, but as far as causal factors for sz, I think trauma was the major factor… 
I was disorganized type, but I have drifted towards paranoid. Haven’t been catatonic for decades, thankfully.
And I’ve never really fitted in with any groups – don’t see the point of starting now.
I think they could be useful for treatment options, but not as effective diagnostic tools?
The point of diagnoses is treatment, without treatment you just have the useless label.
I’m a fan of the Autism model. I believe sz is a spectrum disorder. But a rose by any other name… 
idk what i am 
You’re daydreamer, who dreams the impossible dreams!
i think that was a song once lol
Beautiful melody, I remember
What I mean is that I currently have a diagnosis of sz, which puts me in the same treatment option group as anyone else with sz. The fact that I had childhood trauma may be an indicator that therapy is actually the best treatment option for me. The subgroup would then be effective when choosing treatment options, but make no difference in symptoms present. So the diagnosis of sz with paranoid aspects fits me as a label, and the subgroup of trauma related might help in deciding a treatment.
sorry i just had to post this song, i knew it was Sinatra lol
I understood that… I think your treatment option is therapy because that was the treatment option you chose, but the diagnosis, either it is paranoid sz or trauma psychosis only serves in purpose of treatment. When you receive the dx the only purpose is treatment, not to label you as paranoid sz or traumatized psychotic