King's College London

Research portal

Outcomes following first-episode psychosis - Why we should intervene early in all ages, not only in youth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

Outcomes following first-episode psychosis - Why we should intervene early in all ages, not only in youth. / Lappin, Julia M.; Heslin, Margaret; Jones, Peter B.; Doody, Gillian A.; Reininghaus, Ulrich A.; Demjaha, Arsime; Croudace, Timothy; Jamieson-Craig, Thomas; Donoghue, Kim; Lomas, Ben; Fearon, Paul; Murray, Robin M.; Dazzan, Paola; Morgan, Craig.

In: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 50, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 1055-1063.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Lappin, JM, Heslin, M, Jones, PB, Doody, GA, Reininghaus, UA, Demjaha, A, Croudace, T, Jamieson-Craig, T, Donoghue, K, Lomas, B, Fearon, P, Murray, RM, Dazzan, P & Morgan, C 2016, 'Outcomes following first-episode psychosis - Why we should intervene early in all ages, not only in youth', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 1055-1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867416673454

APA

Lappin, J. M., Heslin, M., Jones, P. B., Doody, G. A., Reininghaus, U. A., Demjaha, A., ... Morgan, C. (2016). Outcomes following first-episode psychosis - Why we should intervene early in all ages, not only in youth. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 50(11), 1055-1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867416673454

Vancouver

Lappin JM, Heslin M, Jones PB, Doody GA, Reininghaus UA, Demjaha A et al. Outcomes following first-episode psychosis - Why we should intervene early in all ages, not only in youth. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;50(11):1055-1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867416673454

Author

Lappin, Julia M. ; Heslin, Margaret ; Jones, Peter B. ; Doody, Gillian A. ; Reininghaus, Ulrich A. ; Demjaha, Arsime ; Croudace, Timothy ; Jamieson-Craig, Thomas ; Donoghue, Kim ; Lomas, Ben ; Fearon, Paul ; Murray, Robin M. ; Dazzan, Paola ; Morgan, Craig. / Outcomes following first-episode psychosis - Why we should intervene early in all ages, not only in youth. In: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2016 ; Vol. 50, No. 11. pp. 1055-1063.

Bibtex Download

@article{efcbcce6fb46481f8da6755261975aad,
title = "Outcomes following first-episode psychosis - Why we should intervene early in all ages, not only in youth",
abstract = "Objective: To compare baseline demographics and 10-year outcomes of a first-episode psychosis patient incidence cohort in order to establish whether current youth-focussed age-based criteria for early intervention services are justified by patient needs. The patients in this cohort were treated prior to the establishment of early intervention services. The study aimed to test the hypothesis that those who develop psychosis at a younger age have worse outcomes than those who develop psychosis at an older age. Methods: Data on first-episode psychosis patients from the {\AE}SOP-10 longitudinal follow-up study were used to compare baseline characteristics, and 10-year clinical, functional and service use outcomes between those patients who would and would not have met age-based criteria for early intervention services, in Australia or in the United Kingdom. Results: In total, 58{\%} men and 71{\%} women with first-episode psychosis were too old to meet current Australian-early intervention age-entry criteria (Χ2 = 9.1, p = 0.003), while 21{\%} men and 34{\%} women were too old for UK-early intervention age-entry criteria (Χ2 = 11.1, p = 0.001). The 10-year clinical and functional outcomes did not differ significantly between groups by either Australian- or UK-early intervention age-entry criteria. Service use was significantly greater among the patients young enough to meet early intervention age-criteria (Australia: incidence rate ratio = 1.35 [1.19, 1.52], p <0.001; United Kingdom: incidence rate ratio = 1.65 [1.41, 1.93], p <0.001). Conclusion: Current early intervention services are gender- and age-inequitable. Large numbers of patients with first-episode psychosis will not receive early intervention care under current service provision. Illness outcomes at 10-years were no worse in first-episode psychosis patients who presented within the age range for whom early intervention has been prioritised, though these patients had greater service use. These data provide a rationale to consider extension of early intervention to all, rather than just to youth.",
keywords = "early intervention, outcomes, Psychosis, schizophrenia, women",
author = "Lappin, {Julia M.} and Margaret Heslin and Jones, {Peter B.} and Doody, {Gillian A.} and Reininghaus, {Ulrich A.} and Arsime Demjaha and Timothy Croudace and Thomas Jamieson-Craig and Kim Donoghue and Ben Lomas and Paul Fearon and Murray, {Robin M.} and Paola Dazzan and Craig Morgan",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0004867416673454",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "1055--1063",
journal = "The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry",
issn = "0004-8674",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "11",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes following first-episode psychosis - Why we should intervene early in all ages, not only in youth

AU - Lappin, Julia M.

AU - Heslin, Margaret

AU - Jones, Peter B.

AU - Doody, Gillian A.

AU - Reininghaus, Ulrich A.

AU - Demjaha, Arsime

AU - Croudace, Timothy

AU - Jamieson-Craig, Thomas

AU - Donoghue, Kim

AU - Lomas, Ben

AU - Fearon, Paul

AU - Murray, Robin M.

AU - Dazzan, Paola

AU - Morgan, Craig

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Objective: To compare baseline demographics and 10-year outcomes of a first-episode psychosis patient incidence cohort in order to establish whether current youth-focussed age-based criteria for early intervention services are justified by patient needs. The patients in this cohort were treated prior to the establishment of early intervention services. The study aimed to test the hypothesis that those who develop psychosis at a younger age have worse outcomes than those who develop psychosis at an older age. Methods: Data on first-episode psychosis patients from the ÆSOP-10 longitudinal follow-up study were used to compare baseline characteristics, and 10-year clinical, functional and service use outcomes between those patients who would and would not have met age-based criteria for early intervention services, in Australia or in the United Kingdom. Results: In total, 58% men and 71% women with first-episode psychosis were too old to meet current Australian-early intervention age-entry criteria (Χ2 = 9.1, p = 0.003), while 21% men and 34% women were too old for UK-early intervention age-entry criteria (Χ2 = 11.1, p = 0.001). The 10-year clinical and functional outcomes did not differ significantly between groups by either Australian- or UK-early intervention age-entry criteria. Service use was significantly greater among the patients young enough to meet early intervention age-criteria (Australia: incidence rate ratio = 1.35 [1.19, 1.52], p <0.001; United Kingdom: incidence rate ratio = 1.65 [1.41, 1.93], p <0.001). Conclusion: Current early intervention services are gender- and age-inequitable. Large numbers of patients with first-episode psychosis will not receive early intervention care under current service provision. Illness outcomes at 10-years were no worse in first-episode psychosis patients who presented within the age range for whom early intervention has been prioritised, though these patients had greater service use. These data provide a rationale to consider extension of early intervention to all, rather than just to youth.

AB - Objective: To compare baseline demographics and 10-year outcomes of a first-episode psychosis patient incidence cohort in order to establish whether current youth-focussed age-based criteria for early intervention services are justified by patient needs. The patients in this cohort were treated prior to the establishment of early intervention services. The study aimed to test the hypothesis that those who develop psychosis at a younger age have worse outcomes than those who develop psychosis at an older age. Methods: Data on first-episode psychosis patients from the ÆSOP-10 longitudinal follow-up study were used to compare baseline characteristics, and 10-year clinical, functional and service use outcomes between those patients who would and would not have met age-based criteria for early intervention services, in Australia or in the United Kingdom. Results: In total, 58% men and 71% women with first-episode psychosis were too old to meet current Australian-early intervention age-entry criteria (Χ2 = 9.1, p = 0.003), while 21% men and 34% women were too old for UK-early intervention age-entry criteria (Χ2 = 11.1, p = 0.001). The 10-year clinical and functional outcomes did not differ significantly between groups by either Australian- or UK-early intervention age-entry criteria. Service use was significantly greater among the patients young enough to meet early intervention age-criteria (Australia: incidence rate ratio = 1.35 [1.19, 1.52], p <0.001; United Kingdom: incidence rate ratio = 1.65 [1.41, 1.93], p <0.001). Conclusion: Current early intervention services are gender- and age-inequitable. Large numbers of patients with first-episode psychosis will not receive early intervention care under current service provision. Illness outcomes at 10-years were no worse in first-episode psychosis patients who presented within the age range for whom early intervention has been prioritised, though these patients had greater service use. These data provide a rationale to consider extension of early intervention to all, rather than just to youth.

KW - early intervention

KW - outcomes

KW - Psychosis

KW - schizophrenia

KW - women

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994666720&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0004867416673454

DO - 10.1177/0004867416673454

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84994666720

VL - 50

SP - 1055

EP - 1063

JO - The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry

JF - The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry

SN - 0004-8674

IS - 11

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454