- NeuroGAP-Psychosis recruited 42,953 participants from Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda between 2018 and 2023 to investigate genetic and environmental psychosis risks.
- Overall 57.3% of participants were male, with country ranges (65.8% Ethiopia to 46.6% Uganda); schizophrenia and bipolar diagnoses varied markedly by country.
- Observed differences likely reflect consent language, recruitment catchment, diagnostic practices, and translation or cultural interpretation, underscoring need for ongoing cross-national evaluation.
PLoS One. 2026 Aug 26;21(8):e0356360. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0356360. eCollection 2026.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Approximately 1.3 million individuals in sub-Saharan Africa, as well as millions of others worldwide, live with psychotic disorders. However, there is limited mental health research based on these populations and even less of a focus on neuropsychiatric genetics research within these settings.
METHODS: To address this gap, the Neuropsychiatric Genetics of African Populations-Psychosis (NeuroGAP-Psychosis), a case-control study, collected data identifying genetic and environmental risk factors associated with psychotic disorders in Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda. This paper describes baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the 42,953 participants recruited between 2018-2023 and compares these characteristics by country and case status.
RESULTS: Overall, 57.3% of participants were male (ranging from 65.8% in Ethiopia to 46.6% in Uganda). Among cases, the clinical diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychotic disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) ranged from 75.5% in Ethiopia to 44.4% in Uganda. Specific to bipolar disorder or mania NOS, the highest proportion was 53.9% in Uganda, and the lowest was 24.0% in Ethiopia. There were country-level and case-status differences across all demographic and clinical (e.g., physical comorbidities, substance use) variables.
CONCLUSION: Many factors, including language of consent, recruitment catchment areas, diagnostic practices across countries, and translation and/or cultural interpretation of the measures used in this study may account for the differences observed across countries. These findings suggest the importance of ongoing evaluation of cross-national differences to explore clinical implications and patterns of symptoms amongst geographically and culturally diverse populations. Future analyses should evaluate within-country differences to better explore these variations.
PMID:42647474 | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0356360
Share Evidence Blueprint
Save to Google Notes
Search Google Scholar
Save as PDF
⭐ My Revision List
