4.6 Article

Reducing duration of untreated psychosis: care pathways to early intervention in psychosis services

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 203, 期 1, 页码 58-64

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.125500

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Health Research
  2. National Institute of Health Research CLAHRC (Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care) Birmingham
  3. National Institute of Health Research CLAHRC (Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care) The Black Country
  4. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [RP-PG-0109-10074] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)
  5. National Institute for Health Research [RP-PG-0109-10074] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Interventions to reduce treatment delay in first-episode psychosis have met with mixed results. Systematic reviews highlight the need for greater understanding of delays within the care pathway if successful strategies are to be developed. Aims To document the care-pathway components of duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) and their link with delays in accessing specialised early intervention services (EIS). To model the likely impact on efforts to reduce DUP of targeted changes in the care pathway. Method Data for 343 individuals from the Birmingham, UK, lead site of the National EDEN cohort study were analysed. Results A third of the cohort had a DUP exceeding 6 months. The greatest contribution to DUP for the whole cohort came from delays within mental health services, followed by help-seeking delays. It was found that delay in reaching EIS was strongly correlated with longer DUP. Conclusions Community education and awareness campaigns to reduce DUP may be constrained by later delays within mental health services, especially access to EIS. Our methodology, based on analysis of care pathways, will have international application when devising strategies to reduce DUP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据