Investigating inequalities in patient outcomes for first-episode psychosis

Dasha Nicholls, Jobie Budd, Philippa Nunn, Paul French, Jo Smith, Veenu Gupta, Jonathan Holdship, Alan Quirk
{"title":"Investigating inequalities in patient outcomes for first-episode psychosis","authors":"Dasha Nicholls, Jobie Budd, Philippa Nunn, Paul French, Jo Smith, Veenu Gupta, Jonathan Holdship, Alan Quirk","doi":"10.1192/bjp.2024.132","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Background</span><p>Understanding inequalities in outcomes between demographic groups is a necessary step in addressing them in clinical care. Inequalities in treatment uptake between demographic groups may explain disparities in outcomes in people with first-episode psychosis (FEP).</p><span>Aims</span><p>To investigate disparities between broad demographic groups in symptomatic improvement in patients with FEP and their relationship to treatment uptake.</p><span>Method</span><p>We used data from 6813 patients from the 2021–2022 National Clinical Audit of Psychosis data-set. Data were grouped by category type to obtain mean outcomes before adjustment to see whether disparities in outcomes remained after differences in treatment uptake had been accounted for. After matching, the average effect of each demographic variable in terms of outcome change was calculated. Moderator effects on specific treatments were investigated using interaction terms in a regression model.</p><span>Results</span><p>Observational results showed that patients aged 18–24 years were less likely to improve in outcome, unless adjusted for intervention uptake. Patients classified as Black and Black British were less likely to improve in outcome (moderation effect 0.04, 95% CI 0–0.07) after adjusting for treatment take-up and demographic factors. Regression analysis showed the general positive effect of supported employment interventions in improving outcomes (coefficient −0.13, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.18, <span>P</span> &lt; 0.001), and moderator analysis suggested targeting particular groups for interventions.</p><span>Conclusions</span><p>Inequalities in treatment uptake and psychotic symptom outcome of FEP by social and demographic factors require monitoring over time. Our analysis provides a framework for monitoring health inequalities across national clinical audits in the UK.</p>","PeriodicalId":22495,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of Psychiatry","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.132","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Understanding inequalities in outcomes between demographic groups is a necessary step in addressing them in clinical care. Inequalities in treatment uptake between demographic groups may explain disparities in outcomes in people with first-episode psychosis (FEP).

Aims

To investigate disparities between broad demographic groups in symptomatic improvement in patients with FEP and their relationship to treatment uptake.

Method

We used data from 6813 patients from the 2021–2022 National Clinical Audit of Psychosis data-set. Data were grouped by category type to obtain mean outcomes before adjustment to see whether disparities in outcomes remained after differences in treatment uptake had been accounted for. After matching, the average effect of each demographic variable in terms of outcome change was calculated. Moderator effects on specific treatments were investigated using interaction terms in a regression model.

Results

Observational results showed that patients aged 18–24 years were less likely to improve in outcome, unless adjusted for intervention uptake. Patients classified as Black and Black British were less likely to improve in outcome (moderation effect 0.04, 95% CI 0–0.07) after adjusting for treatment take-up and demographic factors. Regression analysis showed the general positive effect of supported employment interventions in improving outcomes (coefficient −0.13, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.18, P < 0.001), and moderator analysis suggested targeting particular groups for interventions.

Conclusions

Inequalities in treatment uptake and psychotic symptom outcome of FEP by social and demographic factors require monitoring over time. Our analysis provides a framework for monitoring health inequalities across national clinical audits in the UK.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
调查首发精神病患者治疗结果的不平等现象
背景了解不同人口群体之间治疗结果的不平等是在临床治疗中解决这些问题的必要步骤。Aims To investigate disparities between broad demographic groups in symptomatic improvement in patients with FEP and their relationship to treatment uptake.MethodWe used data from 6813 patients from the 2021-2022 National Clinical Audit of Psychosis data-set.数据按照类别类型进行分组,以获得调整前的平均结果,从而了解在考虑治疗接受率的差异后,结果是否仍存在差异。经过匹配后,计算出每个人口统计学变量对结果变化的平均影响。结果观察结果表明,除非根据干预措施的接受情况进行调整,否则年龄在 18-24 岁的患者的治疗效果较难改善。黑人和英国黑人患者的疗效改善可能性较小(调节效应为 0.04,95% CI 为 0-0.07),这是在对治疗接受情况和人口统计学因素进行调整后得出的结果。回归分析表明,支持性就业干预措施在改善疗效方面具有普遍的积极作用(系数为-0.13,95% CI为-0.07至-0.18,P< 0.001),调节效应分析建议针对特定群体采取干预措施。我们的分析为监测英国全国临床审计中的健康不平等现象提供了一个框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A brief critique of the pseudo-diagnosis ‘complex emotional needs’ Transdiagnostic use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy to treat obsessive–compulsive disorder Professorships in child and adolescent psychiatry relative to a similarly sized medical specialty in the UK and Ireland: cross-sectional study Neural processes linking joint hypermobility and anxiety: key roles for the amygdala and insular cortex Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-harm and self-harm/suicide ideation: population wide, data linkage study and time series analysis: Commentary, Patra et al
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1