We have located open access text paper links.
Duration of Untreated Psychosis and Outcomes in First-Episode Psychosis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Early Detection and Intervention Strategies.
Schizophrenia Bulletin 2024 March 17
BACKGROUND: The role of duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) as an early detection and intervention target to improve outcomes for individuals with first-episode psychosis is unknown.
STUDY DESIGN: PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review to identify studies until February 1, 2023, with an intervention and a control group, reporting DUP in both groups. Random effects meta-analysis to evaluate (1) differences in DUP in early detection/intervention services vs the control group, (2) the efficacy of early detection strategies regarding eight real-world outcomes at baseline (service entry), and (3) the efficacy of early intervention strategies on ten real-world outcomes at follow-up. We conducted quality assessment, heterogeneity, publication bias, and meta-regression analyses (PROSPERO: CRD42020163640).
STUDY RESULTS: From 6229 citations, 33 intervention studies were retrieved. The intervention group achieved a small DUP reduction (Hedges' g = 0.168, 95% CI = 0.055-0.283) vs the control group. The early detection group had better functioning levels (g = 0.281, 95% CI = 0.073-0.488) at baseline. Both groups did not differ regarding total psychopathology, admission rates, quality of life, positive/negative/depressive symptoms, and employment rates (P > .05). Early interventions improved quality of life (g = 0.600, 95% CI = 0.408-0.791), employment rates (g = 0.427, 95% CI = 0.135-0.718), negative symptoms (g = 0.417, 95% CI = 0.153-0.682), relapse rates (g = 0.364, 95% CI = 0.117-0.612), admissions rates (g = 0.335, 95% CI = 0.198-0.468), total psychopathology (g = 0.298, 95% CI = 0.014-0.582), depressive symptoms (g = 0.268, 95% CI = 0.008-0.528), and functioning (g = 0.180, 95% CI = 0.065-0.295) at follow-up but not positive symptoms or remission (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Comparing interventions targeting DUP and control groups, the impact of early detection strategies on DUP and other correlates is limited. However, the impact of early intervention was significant regarding relevant outcomes, underscoring the importance of supporting early intervention services worldwide.
STUDY DESIGN: PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review to identify studies until February 1, 2023, with an intervention and a control group, reporting DUP in both groups. Random effects meta-analysis to evaluate (1) differences in DUP in early detection/intervention services vs the control group, (2) the efficacy of early detection strategies regarding eight real-world outcomes at baseline (service entry), and (3) the efficacy of early intervention strategies on ten real-world outcomes at follow-up. We conducted quality assessment, heterogeneity, publication bias, and meta-regression analyses (PROSPERO: CRD42020163640).
STUDY RESULTS: From 6229 citations, 33 intervention studies were retrieved. The intervention group achieved a small DUP reduction (Hedges' g = 0.168, 95% CI = 0.055-0.283) vs the control group. The early detection group had better functioning levels (g = 0.281, 95% CI = 0.073-0.488) at baseline. Both groups did not differ regarding total psychopathology, admission rates, quality of life, positive/negative/depressive symptoms, and employment rates (P > .05). Early interventions improved quality of life (g = 0.600, 95% CI = 0.408-0.791), employment rates (g = 0.427, 95% CI = 0.135-0.718), negative symptoms (g = 0.417, 95% CI = 0.153-0.682), relapse rates (g = 0.364, 95% CI = 0.117-0.612), admissions rates (g = 0.335, 95% CI = 0.198-0.468), total psychopathology (g = 0.298, 95% CI = 0.014-0.582), depressive symptoms (g = 0.268, 95% CI = 0.008-0.528), and functioning (g = 0.180, 95% CI = 0.065-0.295) at follow-up but not positive symptoms or remission (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Comparing interventions targeting DUP and control groups, the impact of early detection strategies on DUP and other correlates is limited. However, the impact of early intervention was significant regarding relevant outcomes, underscoring the importance of supporting early intervention services worldwide.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app