RESUMO
Introduction: Indicated primary prevention of psychosis is recommended by NICE clinical guidelines, but implementation research on Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P) services is limited. Methods: Electronic audit of CHR-P services in England, conducted between June and September 2021, addressing core implementation domains: service configuration, detection of at-risk individuals, prognostic assessment, clinical care, clinical research, and implementation challenges, complemented by comparative analyses across service model. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U-tests were employed. Results: Twenty-four CHR-P clinical services (19 cities) were included. Most (83.3%) services were integrated within other mental health services; only 16.7% were standalone. Across 21 services, total yearly caseload of CHR-P individuals was 693 (average: 33; range: 4-115). Most services (56.5%) accepted individuals aged 14-35; the majority (95.7%) utilized the Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental States (CAARMS). About 65% of services reported some provision of NICE-compliant interventions encompassing monitoring of mental state, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and family interventions. However, only 66.5 and 4.9% of CHR-P individuals actually received CBT and family interventions, respectively. Core implementation challenges included: recruitment of specialized professionals, lack of dedicated budget, and unmet training needs. Standalone services reported fewer implementation challenges, had larger caseloads (p = 0.047) and were more likely to engage with clinical research (p = 0.037) than integrated services. Discussion: While implementation of CHR-P services is observed in several parts of England, only standalone teams appear successful at detection of at-risk individuals. Compliance with NICE-prescribed interventions is limited across CHR-P services and unmet needs emerge for national training and investments.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Formal thought disorder is a cardinal feature of psychotic disorders, and is also evident in subtle forms before psychosis onset in individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR-P). Assessing speech output or assessing expressive language with speech as the medium at this stage may be particularly useful in predicting later transition to psychosis. METHOD: Speech samples were acquired through administration of the Thought and Language Index (TLI) in 24 CHR-P participants, 16 people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) and 13 healthy controls. The CHR-P individuals were then followed clinically for a mean of 7 years (s.d. = 1.5) to determine if they transitioned to psychosis. Non-semantic speech graph analysis was used to assess the connectedness of transcribed speech in all groups. RESULTS: Speech was significantly more disconnected in the FEP group than in both healthy controls (p < .01) and the CHR-P group (p < .05). Results remained significant when IQ was included as a covariate. Significant correlations were found between speech connectedness measures and scores on the TLI, a manual assessment of formal thought disorder. In the CHR-P group, lower scores on two measures of speech connectedness were associated with subsequent transition to psychosis (8 transitions, 16 non-transitions; p < .05). CONCLUSION: These findings support the utility and validity of speech graph analysis methods in characterizing speech connectedness in the early phases of psychosis. This approach has the potential to be developed into an automated, objective and time-efficient way of stratifying individuals at CHR-P according to level of psychosis risk.
