首发精神病后的结果-为什么我们应该在所有年龄段早期干预,而不仅仅是在年轻人

J. Lappin, M. Heslin, Peter B. Jones, G. Doody, U. Reininghaus, A. Demjaha, T. Croudace, T. Jamieson-Craig, K. Donoghue, B. Lomas, P. Fearon, R. Murray, P. Dazzan, C. Morgan
{"title":"首发精神病后的结果-为什么我们应该在所有年龄段早期干预,而不仅仅是在年轻人","authors":"J. Lappin, M. Heslin, Peter B. Jones, G. Doody, U. Reininghaus, A. Demjaha, T. Croudace, T. Jamieson-Craig, K. Donoghue, B. Lomas, P. Fearon, R. Murray, P. Dazzan, C. Morgan","doi":"10.1177/0004867416673454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":117457,"journal":{"name":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry","volume":"55 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes following first-episode psychosis – Why we should intervene early in all ages, not only in youth\",\"authors\":\"J. Lappin, M. Heslin, Peter B. Jones, G. Doody, U. Reininghaus, A. Demjaha, T. Croudace, T. Jamieson-Craig, K. Donoghue, B. Lomas, P. Fearon, R. Murray, P. Dazzan, C. Morgan\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0004867416673454\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":117457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"55 4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867416673454\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867416673454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

目的:比较首发精神病患者发病率队列的基线人口统计学和10年结果,以确定当前以青少年为重点的基于年龄的早期干预服务标准是否符合患者需求。本队列患者在早期干预服务建立之前接受治疗。这项研究旨在验证一个假设,即那些在年轻时患上精神病的人比那些在年老时患上精神病的人有更糟糕的结果。方法:来自ÆSOP-10纵向随访研究的首发精神病患者的数据用于比较基线特征和10年临床、功能和服务使用结果,这些患者将在澳大利亚或英国满足基于年龄的早期干预服务标准。结果:总的来说,58%的男性和71%的女性首发精神病患者年龄太大,无法满足澳大利亚早期干预的年龄进入标准(χ2 = 9.1, p = 0.003),而21%的男性和34%的女性年龄太大,无法满足英国早期干预的年龄进入标准(χ2 = 11.1, p = 0.001)。根据澳大利亚和英国的早期干预年龄入组标准,10年的临床和功能结果在两组之间没有显著差异。满足早期干预年龄标准的年轻患者的服务使用率显著更高(澳大利亚:发病率比= 1.35 [1.19,1.52],p < 0.001;英国:发病率比= 1.65 [1.41,1.93],p < 0.001)。结论:目前的早期干预服务存在性别和年龄不平等。在目前的服务条件下,大量首发精神病患者无法接受早期干预治疗。在优先考虑早期干预的年龄范围内出现的首发精神病患者,10年的疾病结果并没有更糟,尽管这些患者有更多的服务使用。这些数据为考虑将早期干预扩大到所有人而不仅仅是青少年提供了依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Suicide and suicidality in Australian Defence Force veterans: A systematic scoping review. The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Childhood trauma is prevalent and associated with co-occurring depression, anxiety, mania and psychosis in young people attending Australian youth mental health services Plasma neurofilament light in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia compared to mood and psychotic disorders Systematic review of Indigenous involvement and content in mental health interventions and their effectiveness for Indigenous populations
×
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