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

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.

Unemployment, social isolation, achievement-expectation mismatch and psychosis: findings from the AESOP Study.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to establish: (1) whether social isolation modifies the effect of unemployment on first episode psychosis and duration of untreated psychosis (DUP); and (2) whether the gap between high employment expectations and perceived poor employment achievement is associated with first-episode psychosis; and (3) whether the relationship of this achievement-expectation gap and first-episode psychosis is strongest in the African-Caribbean population. METHOD: All patients with a first episode of psychosis presenting to specialist mental health services within tightly defined catchment areas in south-east London and Nottingham over a 2-year period were included in the study. A random sample of healthy participants living within the same catchment areas was also recruited. Data were collected on socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, DUP, social contacts, and perceived levels of employment achievement and expectation. Analysis was conducted on data of 546 participants (224 cases, 322 controls) from the AESOP study. RESULTS: The relationship between unemployment and risk of non-affective psychosis was moderated by social contacts (unemployed/low social contacts, OR 7.52, 95% CI 2.97-19.08; unemployed/medium social contacts, OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.66-6.47; unemployed/high social contacts, OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.47-3.93). Unemployed patients experienced a longer DUP when having reported lower levels of social contacts. Participants whose employment achievement was lower than their expectations were more likely to be cases than those in whom achievement matched or exceeded expectations (adjusted OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.13-3.02). This applied equally to both African-Caribbean and White British participants (the Mantel-Haenszel test for homogeneity of odds ratios, chi (2 )= 0.96, P = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that unemployment, social isolation, employment achievement and expectations are important environmental factors associated with risk of psychosis. More attention needs to be focused on interactions between environmental factors as well as subjective experience of those factors in future research on the aetiology of psychosis.