scholarly journals Early intervention in psychotic disorders: beyond debate to solving problems

2005 ◽  
Vol 187 (S48) ◽  
pp. s108-s110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick D. Mcgorry

SummaryThe challenges of early diagnosis are similar in psychiatry to the rest of medicine. For potentially severe and persistent disorders there is great value in early diagnosis, however, only under certain conditions. Early diagnosis would not be justified if there were no efficacious treatments or if such treatments provided earlier would do more harm than good for those exposed. There is growing evidence that earlier and sustained intervention improves at least short-term outcomes. However, early intervention may be iatrogenic where systems of care are poor in quality. One thing is clear, the general pattern of care is still ‘too little, too late’ even in the most affluent countries. Consistent and extensive reform of health systems, with recognition of early intervention as an increasingly evidence-based ‘best buy’, represents one of the key priorities in international mental health.

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S1-S2
Author(s):  
Keltie McDonald ◽  
Tao Ding ◽  
Rebecca Dliwayo ◽  
David Osborn ◽  
Pia Wohland ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Providing timely, adequate and appropriately-resourced care to people experiencing their first episode of psychosis needs to be informed by evidence-based models of future need in the population. We sought to develop a validated prediction model of need for provision of early intervention in psychosis [EIP] services at the small area level in England up to 2025, based on current epidemiological evidence and demographic projections of the at-risk population. Methods We developed a Bayesian population-level prediction tool. First, we obtained small area incidence data on first episode psychoses, aged 16–64 years, from three major empirical studies of psychosis risk (ÆSOP, ELFEP and SEPEA). Second, we identified suitable prior information from the published literature on variation in psychosis risk by age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and cannabis use. Third, we combined this empirical data with prior beliefs in six Bayesian Poisson regression models to obtain a full characterisation of the underlying uncertainty in the form of suitable posterior distributions for the relative risks for different permutations of covariate data. Fourth, model coefficients were applied to population projections for 2017 to predict the expected incidence of psychotic disorders, aggregated to Commissioning Group [CCG] and national levels. Fifth, we compared these predictions to observed national FEP data from the NHS Mental Health Services Data Set in 2017 to establish the most valid model. Sixth, we used the best-fitting model to predict three nested indicators of need for psychosis care: (i) total annual referrals to early intervention in psychosis [EIP] for “suspected” FEP (ii) total annual cases accepted onto EIP service caseloads, and (iii) total annual new cases of probable FEP in England up until 2025, using small area population projections. Results A model with an age-sex interaction, ethnicity, small area-level deprivation, social fragmentation and regional cannabis use provided best internal and apparent validity, predicting 8112 (95% Credible Interval 7623 to 8597) individuals with FEP in England in 2017, compared with 8038 observed cases (difference: n=74; 0.94%). Apparent validity was acceptable at CCG level, and by sex and ethnicity, although we observed greater-than-expected need before 35 years old. Predicted new referrals, caseloads and probable incidences of FEP rose over the forecast period by 6.2% to 25,782, 23,187 and 9,541 new cases in 2025, respectively. Discussion Our translational epidemiological tool provides an accurate, validated method to inform planners, commissioners and providers about future population need for psychosis care at different stages of the referral pathway, based on individual and small area level determinants of need. Such tools can be used to underpin evidence-based decision-making in public mental health and resource allocation in mental health systems.


2019 ◽  
Vol 215 (01) ◽  
pp. 388-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Aceituno ◽  
Norha Vera ◽  
A. Matthew Prina ◽  
Paul McCrone

BackgroundEarly intervention in psychosis (EIP) has been developed as an approach to improve the prognosis of people with psychotic disorders and it has been claimed to be a more efficient model of care. However, the evidence is not definitive and doubts have spread regard to the economic outcomes of EIP services amid the usually restricted mental health budget.AimsWe aimed to review the cost-effectiveness evidence of EIP services worldwide.MethodWe systematically reviewed the economic literature about EIP following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. Studies were selected according to previously stated criteria and analysed with standardised critical appraisal tools for trial-based economic evaluations and modelling studies.ResultsA total of 16 studies were selected after applying the eligibility criteria. Most of them were economic evaluations alongside clinical trials. The overall evidence was consistent in the cost-effectiveness of EIP compared with standard care for first episode of psychosis and the Clinical High Risk for Psychosis paradigm. Such evidence was replicated among different health systems, but mainly in high-income countries. The methodological quality of such evidence, however, was moderate and heterogeneity was significant across the studies.ConclusionsThere is consistent evidence that the implementation of EIP services might be a cost-effective alternative across different health systems. Such evidence, nevertheless, derives from heterogeneous and sometimes methodologically flawed studies, reducing the certainty of such statement. More efforts must be done to rigorously assess the value of this intervention, before expanding it among systems where mental health budgets are more constrained.Declaration of interestNone.


2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Perez ◽  
Merritt Schreiber ◽  
Robin Gurwitch ◽  
Jeff Coady

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Siegel ◽  
Gary Haugland ◽  
Ethel Davis Chambers ◽  
Carmen Aponte ◽  
Ralph Blackshear ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Carlos E. Molina

This chapter reviews topics on epidemiology, biostatistics and research design. In addition, topics on mental health systems, evidence-based practice and health care economics will be reviewed. Topics on public policy and law and psychiatry will be reviewed in this chapter


2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 286-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramaris E. German ◽  
Abby Adler ◽  
Sarah A. Frankel ◽  
Shannon Wiltsey Stirman ◽  
Paola Pinedo ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document