Five-year illness trajectories across racial groups in the UK following a first episode psychosis

Effects of a novel, brief psychological therapy (Managing Unusual Sensory Experiences) for hallucinations in first episode psychosis (MUSE FEP): Findings from an exploratory randomised controlled trial

Hallucinations are a common feature of psychosis, yet access to effective psychological treatment is limited. The Managing Unusual Sensory Experiences for First-Episode-Psychosis (MUSE-FEP) trial aimed to establish the feasibility and acceptability of a brief, hallucination-specific, digitally provided treatment, delivered by a non-specialist workforce for people with psychosis. MUSE uses psychoeducation about the causal mechanisms of hallucinations and tailored interventions to help a person understand and manage their experiences. We undertook a two-site, single-blind (rater) Randomised Controlled Trial and recruited 82 participants who were allocated 1:1 to MUSE and treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 40) or TAU alone (n = 42). Participants completed assessments before and after treatment (2 months), and at follow up (3-4 months). Information on recruitment rates, adherence, and completion of outcome assessments was collected. Analyses focussed on feasibility outcomes and initial estimates of intervention effects to inform a future trial. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry 16793301. Criteria for the feasibility of trial methodology and intervention delivery were met. The trial exceeded the recruitment target, had high retention rates (87.8%) at end of treatment, and at follow up (86.6%), with good acceptability of treatment. There were 3 serious adverse events in the therapy group, and 5 in the TAU group. Improvements were evident in both groups at the end of treatment and follow up, with a particular benefit in perceived recovery in the MUSE group. We showed it was feasible to increase access to psychological intervention but a definitive trial requires further changes to the trial design or treatment.

Implementing and Evaluating a National Integrated Digital Registry and Clinical Decision Support System in Early Intervention in Psychosis Services (Early Psychosis Informatics Into Care): Co-Designed Protocol

BACKGROUND

Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services are nationally mandated in England to provide multidisciplinary care to people experiencing first-episode psychosis, which disproportionately affects deprived and ethnic minority youth. Quality of service provision varies by region, and people from historically underserved populations have unequal access. In other disease areas, including stroke and dementia, national digital registries coupled with clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have revolutionized the delivery of equitable, evidence-based interventions to transform patient outcomes and reduce population-level disparities in care. Given psychosis is ranked the third most burdensome mental health condition by the World Health Organization, it is essential that we achieve the same parity of health improvements.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reports the protocol for the program development phase of this study, in which we aimed to co-design and produce an evidence-based, stakeholder-informed framework for the building, implementation, piloting, and evaluation of a national integrated digital registry and CDSS for psychosis, known as EPICare (Early Psychosis Informatics into Care).

METHODS

We conducted 3 concurrent work packages, with reciprocal knowledge exchange between each. In work package 1, using a participatory co-design framework, key stakeholders (clinicians, academics, policy makers, and patient and public contributors) engaged in 4 workshops to review, refine, and identify a core set of essential and desirable measures and features of the EPICare registry and CDSS. Using a modified Delphi approach, we then developed a consensus of data priorities. In work package 2, we collaborated with National Health Service (NHS) informatics teams to identify relevant data currently captured in electronic health records, understand data retrieval methods, and design the software architecture and data model to inform future implementation. In work package 3, observations of stakeholder workshops and individual interviews with representative stakeholders (n=10) were subject to interpretative qualitative analysis, guided by normalization process theory, to identify factors likely to influence the adoption and implementation of EPICare into routine practice.

RESULTS

Stage 1 of the EPICare study took place between December 2021 and September 2022. The next steps include stage 2 building, piloting, implementation, and evaluation of EPICare in 5 demonstrator NHS Trusts serving underserved and diverse populations with substantial need for EIP care in England. If successful, this will be followed by stage 3, in which we will seek NHS adoption of EPICare for rollout to all EIP services in England.

CONCLUSIONS

By establishing a multistakeholder network and engaging them in an iterative co-design process, we have identified essential and desirable elements of the EPICare registry and CDSS; proactively identified and minimized potential challenges and barriers to uptake and implementation; and addressed key questions related to informatics architecture, infrastructure, governance, and integration in diverse NHS Trusts, enabling us to proceed with the building, piloting, implementation, and evaluation of EPICare.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/50177.

Predictors of relapse and engagement in care one year after ending services in an urban safety net coordinated specialty care program for first episode psychosis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify risk factors for relapse (psychiatric emergency department visits or hospitalization) and lack of follow-up with outpatient psychiatric care in the 12 months after ending services in an urban safety net coordinated specialty care (CSC) program for first episode psychosis (FEP).

METHODS

The study population (n = 143) were individuals with FEP who had any CSC care between 2014 and 2021. To identify risk factors for relapse and follow up after exit, multivariable logistic regression was performed using data from electronic health records and linked insurance claims data.

RESULTS

Individuals with any emergency department visit or hospitalization 12 months prior to ending CSC (aOR = 4.69, 95 % CI 1.78-12.34) and those who were using cannabis at last CSC contact (aOR = 4.06, 95 % CI 1.56-10.56) had a higher risk of relapse after ending CSC services. Cannabis use at last contact was also associated with lower rates of outpatient psychiatric follow-up (aOR = 0.32, 95 % CI 0.12-0.94), while CSC duration in months had a small positive association with post-CSC psychiatric follow-up. There were no differences in relapse or follow-up by race or ethnicity, primary diagnosis, or medication usage.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior relapse during CSC predicted relapse in the 12 months after ending CSC services, but not outpatient follow up. Cannabis use predicted both a higher rate of relapse and a lower rate of follow up after ending services. There were no differences by race or ethnicity in our sample, suggesting that once individuals engaged in FEP care there were no evident disparities in the observed outcomes.