Carolyn M Crane

Cognitive behaviour therapy for improving social recovery in psychosis: a report from the ISREP MRC Trial Platform study (Improving Social Recovery in Early Psychosis)

BACKGROUND This study reports on a preliminary evaluation of a cognitive behavioural intervention to improve social recovery among young people in the early stages of psychosis showing persistent signs of poor social functioning and unemployment. The study was a single-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two arms, 35 participants receiving cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) plus treatment as usual (TAU), and 42 participants receiving TAU alone. Participants were assessed at baseline and post-treatment. METHOD Seventy-seven participants were recruited from secondary mental health teams after presenting with a history of unemployment and poor social outcome. The cognitive behavioural intervention was delivered over a 9-month period with a mean of 12 sessions. The primary outcomes were weekly hours spent in constructive economic and structured activity. A range of secondary and tertiary outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS Intention-to-treat analysis on the combined affective and non-affective psychosis sample showed no significant impact of treatment on primary or secondary outcomes. However, analysis of interactions by diagnostic subgroup was significant for secondary symptomatic outcomes on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) [F(1, 69)=3.99, p=0.05]. Subsequent exploratory analyses within diagnostic subgroups revealed clinically important and significant improvements in weekly hours in constructive and structured activity and PANSS scores among people with non-affective psychosis. CONCLUSIONS The primary study comparison provided no clear evidence for the benefit of CBT in a combined sample of patients. However, planned analyses with diagnostic subgroups showed important benefits for CBT among people with non-affective psychosis who have social recovery problems. These promising results need to be independently replicated in a larger, multi-centre RCT.

The Epidemiology of First-Episode Psychosis in Early Intervention in Psychosis Services: Findings From the Social Epidemiology of Psychoses in East Anglia [SEPEA] Study

OBJECTIVE Few studies have characterized the epidemiology of first-episode psychoses in rural or urban settings since the introduction of early intervention psychosis services. To address this, the authors conducted a naturalistic cohort study in England, where such services are well established. METHOD All new first-episode psychosis cases, 16-35 years old, presenting to early intervention psychosis services in the East of England were identified during 2 million person-years follow-up. Presence of ICD-10 F10-33 psychotic disorder was confirmed using OPCRIT [operational criteria for psychotic illness]. Incidence rate ratios were estimated following multivariable Poisson regression, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, neighborhood-level deprivation, and population density. RESULTS Of 1,005 referrals, 687 participants (68.4%) fulfilled epidemiological and diagnostic criteria for first-episode psychosis (34.0 new cases per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI=31.5-36.6). Median age at referral was similar for men (22.5 years; interquartile range: 19.5-26.7) and women (23.4 years; interquartile range: 19.5-29.1); incidence rates were highest for men and women before 20 years of age. Rates increased for ethnic minority groups (incidence rate ratio: 1.4; 95% CI=1.1-1.6), as well as with lower socioeconomic status (incidence rate ratio: 1.3; 95% CI=1.2-1.4) and in more urban (incidence rate ratio: 1.4;95%CI=1.0-1.8) and deprived (incidence rate ratio: 2.1; 95% CI=1.3-3.3) neighborhoods, after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSIONS Pronounced variation in psychosis incidence, peaking before 20 years old, exists in populations served by early intervention psychosis services. Excess rates were restricted to urban and deprived communities, suggesting that a threshold of socioenvironmental adversity may be necessary to increase incidence. This robust epidemiology can inform service development in various settings about likely population-level need.

Clinical and sociodemographic comparison of people at high‐risk for psychosis and with first‐episode psychosis

Zimbrón J, Ruiz de Azúa S, Khandaker GM, Gandamaneni PK, Crane CM, González‐Pinto A, Stochl J, Jones PB, Pérez J. Clinical and sociodemographic comparison of people at high‐risk for psychosis and with first‐episode psychosis.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tailored intensive liaison between primary and secondary care to identify individuals at risk of a first psychotic illness (the LEGs study): a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Summary Background General practitioners are usually the first health professionals to be contacted by people with early signs of psychosis. We aimed to assess whether increased liaison between primary and secondary care improves the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of detection of people with, or at high risk of developing, a first psychotic illness. Methods Our Liaison and Education in General Practices (LEGs) study was a cluster-randomised controlled trial of primary care practices (clusters) in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, UK. Consenting practices were randomly allocated (1:1) to a 2 year low-intensity intervention (a postal campaign, consisting of biannual guidelines to help identify and refer individuals with early signs of psychosis) or a high-intensity intervention, which additionally included a specialist mental health professional who liaised with every practice and a theory-based educational package. Practices were not masked to group allocation. Practices that did not consent to be randomly assigned comprised a practice-as-usual (PAU) group. The primary outcome was number of referrals of patients at high risk of developing psychosis to the early intervention service per practice site. New referrals were assessed clinically and stratified into those who met criteria for high risk or first-episode psychotic illness (FEP; together: psychosis true positives), and those who did not fulfil such criteria for psychosis (false positives). Referrals from PAU practices were also analysed. We assessed cost-effectiveness with decision analytic modelling in terms of the incremental cost per additional true positive identified. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN70185866. Findings Between Dec 22, 2009, and Sept 7, 2010, 54 of 104 eligible practices provided consent and between Feb 16, 2010, and Feb 11, 2011, these practices were randomly allocated to interventions (28 to low intensity and 26 to high intensity); the remaining 50 practices comprised the PAU group. Two high-intensity practices were excluded from the analysis. In the 2 year intervention period, high-intensity practices referred more FEP cases than did low-intensity practices (mean 1·25 [SD 1·2] for high intensity vs 0·7 [0·9] for low intensity; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1·9, 95% CI 1·05–3·4, p=0·04), although the difference was not statistically significant for individuals at high risk of psychosis (0·9 [1·0] vs 0·5 [1·0]; 2·2, 0·9–5·1, p=0·08). For high risk and FEP combined, high-intensity practices referred both more true-positive (2·2 [1·7] vs 1·1 [1·7]; 2·0, 1·1–3·6, p=0·02) and false-positive (2·3 [2·4] vs 0·9 [1·2]; 2·6, 1·3–5·0, p=0·005) cases. Referral patterns did not differ between low-intensity and PAU practices. Total cost per true-positive referral in the 2 year follow-up was £26 785 in high-intensity practices, £27 840 in low-intensity practices, and £30 007 in PAU practices. Interpretation This intensive intervention to improve liaison between primary and secondary care for people with early signs of psychosis was clinically and cost effective. Funding UK National Institute for Health Research.

Social and spatial heterogeneity in psychosis proneness in a multilevel case-prodrome-control study.

To test whether spatial and social neighbourhood patterning of people at ultra‐high risk (UHR) of psychosis differs from first‐episode psychosis (FEP) participants or controls and to determine whether exposure to different social environments is evident before disorder onset.