-
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Mar 2021To systematically review evidence for the association between trauma experienced in childhood or adolescence, and the subsequent experience of affective or psychotic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review evidence for the association between trauma experienced in childhood or adolescence, and the subsequent experience of affective or psychotic mental disorders in adulthood.
METHODS
Electronic databases (Scopus, Medline (for Ovid), EMBASE and PsychINFO) were searched for peer-reviewed, longitudinal cohort studies in the English language examining child or adolescent exposure to trauma, and adult-diagnosed depression, anxiety, psychotic disorder or bipolar disorder. A total of 23 manuscripts were retained.
RESULTS
Results revealed a significant association between the following childhood exposures and adult mental disorder: bullying (victimhood, perpetration and frequency); emotional abuse; physical neglect; parental loss; and general maltreatment (unspecified and/or multiple trauma exposure). There was some evidence of a dose-response relationship with those exposed to multiple forms of maltreatment having more than three times the odds of developing a mental disorder (Odds ratio = 3.11, 95% CI = 1.36-7.14). There was no significant association found between physical or sexual abuse and adult mental disorder; however, this is likely an artefact of how these adversities were assessed.
CONCLUSION
There is strong evidence of an association between childhood trauma and later mental illness. This association is particularly evident for exposure to bullying, emotional abuse, maltreatment and parental loss. The evidence suggests that childhood and adolescence are an important time for risk for later mental illness, and an important period in which to focus intervention strategies.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Adult Survivors of Child Abuse; Anxiety Disorders; Child; Child Abuse; Cohort Studies; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 33315268
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13268 -
Psychiatry Research May 2022Depression is a prevalent mental disorder in older adults, but the prevalence in older adults varies largely across studies due to differences in regional cultures and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Depression is a prevalent mental disorder in older adults, but the prevalence in older adults varies largely across studies due to differences in regional cultures and screening tools. The objective of this review is to systematically evaluate the global prevalence of depression in older adults. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochran Library databases were searched independently from 2000 to 2021. Subgroups, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed to address heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger's test. Forty-eight eligible studies were included in this review. The global prevalence of depression in older adults was 28.4%, with high between-study heterogeneity. The meta-analysis showed that the prevalence of depression in older adults is high although it varied with geographic regions, screening tools, sample sizes and representativeness, and study quality. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully consider appropriate screening tools to estimate the prevalence in different regions of a population.
Topics: Aged; Depression; Humans; Mass Screening; Prevalence; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 35316691
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114511 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Jul 2021Narcolepsy is a rare sleep disorder in which psychotic-like symptoms can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. We aimed to review the association between, and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Narcolepsy is a rare sleep disorder in which psychotic-like symptoms can present diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. We aimed to review the association between, and medical management of, narcolepsy and psychosis in children and adults.
METHODS
We reviewed the full text of 100 papers from 187 identified by a PubMed search on narcolepsy plus any of these keywords: psychosis, schizophrenia, delusion, side effects, safety, and bipolar disorder.
RESULTS
Three relevant groups are described. (i) In typical narcolepsy, psychotic-like symptoms include predominantly visual hallucinations at the sleep-wake transition (experienced as "not real") and dissociation because of intrusion of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep phenomena into wakefulness. (ii) Atypical patients ("the psychotic form of narcolepsy") experience more severe and vivid, apparently REM-related hallucinations or dream/reality confusions, which patients may rationalize in a delusion-like way. (iii) Some patients have a comorbid schizophrenia spectrum disorder with psychotic symptoms unrelated to sleep. Psychostimulants used to treat narcolepsy may trigger psychotic symptoms in all three groups. We analyzed 58 published cases from groups 2 and 3 (n = 17 and 41). Features that were reported significantly more frequently in atypical patients include visual and multimodal hallucinations, sexual and mystical delusions, and false memories. Dual diagnosis patients had more disorganized symptoms and earlier onset of narcolepsy.
CONCLUSION
Epidemiological studies tentatively suggest a possible association between narcolepsy and schizophrenia only for very early-onset cases, which could be related to the partially overlapping neurodevelopmental changes observed in these disorders. We propose a clinical algorithm for the management of cases with psychotic-like or psychotic features.
Topics: Adult; Child; Hallucinations; Humans; Narcolepsy; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia; Sleep, REM
PubMed: 33779983
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13300 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Schizophrenia is a disabling psychotic disorder characterised by positive symptoms of delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech and behaviour; and negative symptoms... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is a disabling psychotic disorder characterised by positive symptoms of delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech and behaviour; and negative symptoms such as affective flattening and lack of motivation. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological intervention that aims to change the way in which a person interprets and evaluates their experiences, helping them to identify and link feelings and patterns of thinking that underpin distress. CBT models targeting symptoms of psychosis (CBTp) have been developed for many mental health conditions including schizophrenia. CBTp has been suggested as a useful add-on therapy to medication for people with schizophrenia. While CBT for people with schizophrenia was mainly developed as an individual treatment, it is expensive and a group approach may be more cost-effective. Group CBTp can be defined as a group intervention targeting psychotic symptoms, based on the cognitive behavioural model. In group CBTp, people work collaboratively on coping with distressing hallucinations, analysing evidence for their delusions, and developing problem-solving and social skills. However, the evidence for effectiveness is far from conclusive.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate efficacy and acceptability of group CBT applied to psychosis compared with standard care or other psychosocial interventions, for people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.
SEARCH METHODS
On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials allocating adults with schizophrenia to receive either group CBT for schizophrenia, compared with standard care, or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We complied with Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Where possible, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a summary of findings table using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
The review includes 24 studies (1900 participants). All studies compared group CBTp with treatments that a person with schizophrenia would normally receive in a standard mental health service (standard care) or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual). None of the studies compared group CBTp with individual CBTp. Overall risk of bias within the trials was moderate to low. We found no studies reporting data for our primary outcome of clinically important change. With regard to numbers of participants leaving the study early, group CBTp has little or no effect compared to standard care or other psychosocial interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.59; studies = 13, participants = 1267; I = 9%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp may have some advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions for overall mental state at the end of treatment for endpoint scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total (MD -3.73, 95% CI -4.63 to -2.83; studies = 12, participants = 1036; I = 5%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp seems to have little or no effect on PANSS positive symptoms (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.40; studies =8, participants = 539; I = 0%) and on PANSS negative symptoms scores at the end of treatment (MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.21; studies = 9, participants = 768; I = 65%). Group CBTp seems to have an advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions on global functioning measured by Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; MD -3.61, 95% CI -6.37 to -0.84; studies = 5, participants = 254; I = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), Personal and Social Performance Scale (PSP; MD 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 4.60; studies = 1, participants = 100), and Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS; MD -1.27, 95% CI -2.46 to -0.08; studies = 1, participants = 116). Service use data were equivocal with no real differences between treatment groups for number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.60; studies = 3, participants = 235; I = 34%). There was no clear difference between group CBTp and standard care or other psychosocial interventions endpoint scores on depression and quality of life outcomes, except for quality of life measured by World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) Psychological domain subscale (MD -4.64, 95% CI -9.04 to -0.24; studies = 2, participants = 132; I = 77%). The studies did not report relapse or adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Group CBTp appears to be no better or worse than standard care or other psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia in terms of leaving the study early, service use and general quality of life. Group CBTp seems to be more effective than standard care or other psychosocial interventions on overall mental state and global functioning scores. These results may not be widely applicable as each study had a low sample size. Therefore, no firm conclusions concerning the efficacy of group CBTp for people with schizophrenia can currently be made. More high-quality research, reporting useable and relevant data is needed.
Topics: Adult; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Hallucinations; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Quality of Life; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 35866377
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009608.pub2 -
Schizophrenia Bulletin Apr 2024It has been proposed that cat ownership may be a risk-modifying factor for schizophrenia-related disorders and psychotic-like experiences (PLE). This study aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It has been proposed that cat ownership may be a risk-modifying factor for schizophrenia-related disorders and psychotic-like experiences (PLE). This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze publications that reported the relationship between cat ownership and schizophrenia-related outcomes.
METHODOLOGY
We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and gray literature for publications between January 1, 1980, and May 30, 2023, regardless of geographical location and language. Backward citation search methods were used to locate additional articles. We included studies that reported original data on cat ownership and schizophrenia-related outcomes. We meta-analyzed estimates based on broad definitions (cat ownership, cat bites, and cat contact) with estimates with or without covariate adjustments. We pooled comparable estimates using random-effects models and assessed the risk of bias, heterogeneity, and study quality.
RESULTS
We identified 1915 studies, of which 106 were chosen for full-text review, ultimately resulting in the inclusion of 17 studies. We found an association between broadly defined cat ownership and increased odds of developing schizophrenia-related disorders. For the studies reporting unadjusted odds ratios (OR; n = 10), the pooled OR was 2.14 (95% CI: 1.29-3.55). Exclusion of one outlier study resulted in a pooled OR (n = 9) of 1.56 (95% CI: 1.27-1.92). For the studies reporting adjusted estimates (n = 5), the pooled OR was 2.44 (95% CI: 1.59-3.73). After excluding one study with suboptimal exposure/design features, the pooled adjusted OR (n = 4) was 2.40 (95% CI: 1.50-3.86). We were unable to aggregate the estimates for the PLE outcomes because of the broad range of measures.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings provide support for the hypothesis that cat exposure is associated with an increased risk of broadly defined schizophrenia-related disorders; however, the findings related to PLE as an outcome are mixed. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this field.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023426974. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023426974.
Topics: Humans; Schizophrenia; Cats; Psychotic Disorders; Animals; Ownership; Pets
PubMed: 38041862
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbad168 -
Current Psychiatry Reports Nov 2021Over the last ten years, the treatment of psychosis has seen a near explosion of creative development in both novel agents and new delivery modalities. The current... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Over the last ten years, the treatment of psychosis has seen a near explosion of creative development in both novel agents and new delivery modalities. The current review summarizes these developments over the past decade (2011-2020). We performed a systematic review utilizing PubMed and PsychInfo with the aim of identifying all the RCT and related analyses in adults with psychosis (schizophrenia and mania).
RECENT FINDINGS
We identified 11 significant developments: the introduction of new antipsychotics cariprazine, brexpiprazole, lumateperone, and pimavanserin; introduction of new delivery methods: subcutaneous long-acting risperidone, aripiprazole lauroxil, transdermal asenapine, and inhaled loxapine; and the introduction of new approaches such as olanzapine/samidorphan for olanzapine-associated weight gain, examination of the TAAR1 agonist SEP 363,856 as a test of concept, and the combination of Xanomeline/Trospium, an M and M muscarinic receptor agonist in conjunction with a peripheral anticholinergic. Last decade has seen a tremendous development in second-generation antipsychotics which provides unprecedented treatment options for clinicians in treating psychosis.
Topics: Adult; Antipsychotic Agents; Humans; Olanzapine; Psychotic Disorders; Risperidone; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 34843030
DOI: 10.1007/s11920-021-01298-w -
European Archives of Psychiatry and... Jun 2020We conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews to evaluate the impact of cannabis use on the onset and course of psychoses. Following a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews to evaluate the impact of cannabis use on the onset and course of psychoses. Following a systematic literature search of five data bases (2005-2016) and consecutive structured evaluation, we were able to include 26 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the included publications were in the range of high and poor. The scientific literature indicates that psychotic illness arises more frequently in cannabis users compared to non-users, cannabis use is associated with a dose-dependent risk of developing psychotic illness, and cannabis users have an earlier onset of psychotic illness compared to non-users. Cannabis use was also associated with increased relapse rates, more hospitalizations and pronounced positive symptoms in psychotic patients. We make recommendations about the type of research that is required to better characterize the relationship between cannabis use and the development and outcomes of psychosis.
Topics: Humans; Marijuana Use; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 31563981
DOI: 10.1007/s00406-019-01068-z -
Neuropsychobiology 2020Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) represent a cluster of severe mental illnesses. Diet has been identified as a modifiable risk factor and opportunity for...
INTRODUCTION
Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) represent a cluster of severe mental illnesses. Diet has been identified as a modifiable risk factor and opportunity for intervention in many physical illnesses and more recently in mental illnesses such as unipolar depression; however, no dietary guidelines exist for patients with SSD.
OBJECTIVE
This review sought to systematically scope the existing literature in order to identify nutritional interventions for the prevention or treatment of mental health symptoms in SSD as well as gaps and opportunities for further research.
METHODS
This review followed established methodological approaches for scoping reviews including an extensive a priori search strategy and duplicate screening. Because of the large volume of results, an online program (Abstrackr) was used for screening and tagging. Data were extracted based on the dietary constituents and analyzed.
RESULTS
Of 55,330 results identified by the search, 822 studies met the criteria for inclusion. Observational evidence shows a connection between the presence of psychotic disorders and poorer quality dietary patterns, higher intake of refined carbohydrates and total fat, and lower intake or levels of fibre, ω-3 and ω-6 fatty acids, vegetables, fruit, and certain vitamins and minerals (vitamin B12 and B6, folate, vitamin C, zinc, and selenium). Evidence illustrates a role of food allergy and sensitivity as well as microbiome composition and specific phytonutrients (such as L-theanine, sulforaphane, and resveratrol). Experimental studies have demonstrated benefit using healthy diet patterns and specific vitamins and minerals (vitamin B12 and B6, folate, and zinc) and amino acids (serine, lysine, glycine, and tryptophan).
DISCUSSION
Overall, these findings were consistent with many other bodies of knowledge about healthy dietary patterns. Many limitations exist related to the design of the individual studies and the ability to extrapolate the results of studies using dietary supplements to dietary interventions (food). Dietary recommendations are presented as well as recommendations for further research including more prospective observational studies and intervention studies that modify diet constituents or entire dietary patterns with statistical power to detect mental health outcomes.
Topics: Diet; Humans; Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Psychotic Disorders; Schizophrenia
PubMed: 30359969
DOI: 10.1159/000493399 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2021Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence is limited regarding the most effective pharmacological treatment for psychotic depression: monotherapy with an antidepressant, monotherapy with an antipsychotic, another treatment (e.g. mifepristone), or combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic. This is an update of a review first published in 2005 and last updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
1. To compare the clinical efficacy of pharmacological treatments for patients with an acute psychotic depression: antidepressant monotherapy, antipsychotic monotherapy, mifepristone monotherapy, and the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus placebo and/or each other. 2. To assess whether differences in response to treatment in the current episode are related to non-response to prior treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR); Ovid MEDLINE (1950-); Embase (1974-); and PsycINFO (1960-) was conducted on 21 February 2020. Reference lists of all included studies and related reviews were screened and key study authors contacted.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with acute major depression with psychotic features, as well as RCTs consisting of participants with acute major depression with or without psychotic features, that reported separately on the subgroup of participants with psychotic features.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies, according to criteria from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data were entered into RevMan 5.1. We used intention-to-treat data. Primary outcomes were clinical response for efficacy and overall dropout rate for harm/tolerance. Secondary outcome were remission of depression, change from baseline severity score, quality of life, and dropout rate due to adverse effects. For dichotomous efficacy outcomes (i.e. response and overall dropout), risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Regarding the primary outcome of harm, only overall dropout rates were available for all studies. If the study did not report any of the response criteria as defined above, remission as defined here could be used as an alternative. For continuously distributed outcomes, it was not possible to extract data from the RCTs. MAIN RESULTS: The search identified 3947 abstracts, but only 12 RCTs with a total of 929 participants could be included in the review. Because of clinical heterogeneity, few meta-analyses were possible. The main outcome was reduction in severity (response) of depression, not of psychosis. For depression response, we found no evidence of a difference between antidepressant and placebo (RR 8.40, 95% CI 0.50 to 142.27; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or between antipsychotic and placebo (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found no evidence of a difference in overall dropouts with antidepressant (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.51; participants = 27, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.08; participants = 201, studies = 2; very low-certainty evidence). No evidence suggests a difference in depression response (RR 2.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 6.82; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) or overall dropouts (RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.18 to 18.02; participants = 36, studies = 1; very low-certainty evidence) between antidepressant and antipsychotic. For depression response, low- to very low-certainty evidence suggests that the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic may be more effective than antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.38; participants = 447, studies = 4), more effective than antidepressant monotherapy (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.80; participants = 245, studies = 5), and more effective than placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.82; participants = 148, studies = 2). Very low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in overall dropouts between the combination of an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic versus antipsychotic monotherapy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; participants = 447, studies = 4), antidepressant monotherapy (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50; participants = 245, studies = 5), or placebo alone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.18; participants = 148, studies = 2). No study measured change in depression severity from baseline, quality of life, or dropouts due to adverse events. We found no RCTs with mifepristone that fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias is considerable: we noted differences between studies with regards to diagnosis, uncertainties around randomisation and allocation concealment, treatment interventions (pharmacological differences between various antidepressants and antipsychotics), and outcome criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Psychotic depression is heavily under-studied, limiting confidence in the conclusions drawn. Some evidence indicates that combination therapy with an antidepressant plus an antipsychotic is more effective than either treatment alone or placebo. Evidence is limited for treatment with an antidepressant alone or with an antipsychotic alone. Evidence for efficacy of mifepristone is lacking.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Psychotic Disorders; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34875106
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004044.pub5 -
JAMA Psychiatry Jul 2020Detection, prognosis, and indicated interventions in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) are key components of preventive psychiatry.
IMPORTANCE
Detection, prognosis, and indicated interventions in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) are key components of preventive psychiatry.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a comprehensive, evidence-based systematic appraisal of the advancements and limitations of detection, prognosis, and interventions for CHR-P individuals and to formulate updated recommendations.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, and Ovid/PsychINFO were searched for articles published from January 1, 2013, to June 30, 2019, to identify meta-analyses conducted in CHR-P individuals. MEDLINE was used to search the reference lists of retrieved articles. Data obtained from each article included first author, year of publication, topic investigated, type of publication, study design and number, sample size of CHR-P population and comparison group, type of comparison group, age and sex of CHR-P individuals, type of prognostic assessment, interventions, quality assessment (using AMSTAR [Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews]), and key findings with their effect sizes.
FINDINGS
In total, 42 meta-analyses published in the past 6 years and encompassing 81 outcomes were included. For the detection component, CHR-P individuals were young (mean [SD] age, 20.6 [3.2] years), were more frequently male (58%), and predominantly presented with attenuated psychotic symptoms lasting for more than 1 year before their presentation at specialized services. CHR-P individuals accumulated several sociodemographic risk factors compared with control participants. Substance use (33% tobacco use and 27% cannabis use), comorbid mental disorders (41% with depressive disorders and 15% with anxiety disorders), suicidal ideation (66%), and self-harm (49%) were also frequently seen in CHR-P individuals. CHR-P individuals showed impairments in work (Cohen d = 0.57) or educational functioning (Cohen d = 0.21), social functioning (Cohen d = 1.25), and quality of life (Cohen d = 1.75). Several neurobiological and neurocognitive alterations were confirmed in this study. For the prognosis component, the prognostic accuracy of CHR-P instruments was good, provided they were used in clinical samples. Overall, risk of psychosis was 22% at 3 years, and the risk was the highest in the brief and limited intermittent psychotic symptoms subgroup (38%). Baseline severity of attenuated psychotic (Cohen d = 0.35) and negative symptoms (Cohen d = 0.39) as well as low functioning (Cohen d = 0.29) were associated with an increased risk of psychosis. Controlling risk enrichment and implementing sequential risk assessments can optimize prognostic accuracy. For the intervention component, no robust evidence yet exists to favor any indicated intervention over another (including needs-based interventions and control conditions) for preventing psychosis or ameliorating any other outcome in CHR-P individuals. However, because the uncertainty of this evidence is high, needs-based and psychological interventions should still be offered.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This review confirmed recent substantial advancements in the detection and prognosis of CHR-P individuals while suggesting that effective indicated interventions need to be identified. This evidence suggests a need for specialized services to detect CHR-P individuals in primary and secondary care settings, to formulate a prognosis with validated psychometric instruments, and to offer needs-based and psychological interventions.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Psychotic Disorders; Young Adult
PubMed: 32159746
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4779