The clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-p) syndrome enables early identification of individuals at risk of schizophrenia and related disorders. We differentiate between the stigma associated with the at-risk identification itself (‘labelling-related’ stigma) versus stigma attributed to experiencing mental health symptoms (‘symptom-related’ stigma) and examine their relationships with key psychosocial variables.

We compare labelling- and symptom-related stigma in rates of endorsement and associations with self-esteem, social support loss and quality of life.

We assessed stigma domains of shame-related emotions, secrecy and experienced discrimination for both types of stigma. Individuals at CHR-p were recruited across three sites (N = 150); primary analyses included those who endorsed awareness of psychosis risk (n = 113). Paired-sample t-tests examined differences in labelling- versus symptom-related stigma; regressions examined associations with psychosocial variables, controlling for covariates, including CHR-p symptoms.

Respondents reported greater symptom-related shame, but more labelling-related secrecy. Of the nine significant associations between stigma and psychosocial variables, eight were attributable to symptom-related stigma, even after adjusting for CHR-p symptoms.

Stigma attributed to symptoms had a stronger negative association with psychosocial variables than did labelling-related stigma among individuals recently identified as CHR-p. That secrecy related to the CHR-p designation was greater than its symptom-related counterpart suggests that labelling-related stigma may still be problematic for some CHR-p participants. To optimise this pivotal early intervention effort, interventions should address the holistic ‘stigmatising experience’ of having symptoms, namely any harmful reactions received as well as participants’ socially influenced concerns about what their experiences mean, in addition to the symptoms themselves.

Only 30% or fewer of individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) convert to full psychosis within 2 years. Efforts are thus underway to refine risk identification strategies to increase their predictive power. Our objective was to develop and validate the predictive accuracy and individualized risk components of a mobile app-based psychosis risk calculator (RC) in a CHR sample from the SHARP (ShangHai At Risk for Psychosis) program.

In total, 400 CHR individuals were identified by the Chinese version of the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes. In the first phase of 300 CHR individuals, 196 subjects (65.3%) who completed neurocognitive assessments and had at least a 2-year follow-up assessment were included in the construction of an RC for psychosis. In the second phase of the SHARP sample of 100 subjects, 93 with data integrity were included to validate the performance of the SHARP-RC.

The SHARP-RC showed good discrimination of subsequent transition to psychosis with an AUC of 0.78 (p < 0.001). The individualized risk generated by the SHARP-RC provided a solid estimation of conversion in the independent validation sample, with an AUC of 0.80 (p = 0.003). A risk estimate of 20% or higher had excellent sensitivity (84%) and moderate specificity (63%) for the prediction of psychosis. The relative contribution of individual risk components can be simultaneously generated. The mobile app-based SHARP-RC was developed as a convenient tool for individualized psychosis risk appraisal.

The SHARP-RC provides a practical tool not only for assessing the probability that an individual at CHR will develop full psychosis, but also personal risk components that might be targeted in early intervention.