The population of persons of color (POC) are increasing in the United States. Unfortunately, POC are significantly impacted by serious mental illness; psychosis represents a mental health disparity among POC. Fortunately, first episode coordinated specialty care (CSC) is an effective treatment for individuals who are in the early phases of a psychotic disorder. This systematic review of the literature examined POC inclusion rates in randomized controlled trials (RCT) examining First Episode Psychosis (FEP) programs. Our review yielded seven articles that met inclusion criteria. Our findings were mixed-researchers conducting RCTs on FEP programs did an excellent job including African American participants suggesting that findings from RCTs on FEP programs may generalize to African American participants. Regarding Latines, they were broadly underrepresented in RCTs on FEP CSC. Based on the data, we cannot definitively conclude to what extent findings from RCTs on FEP CSC generalize to Latines although results from studies that included a reasonable number of Latines offer promising results. Asians were overrepresented in three of the seven studies included in this review; thus it seems that the findings from RCTs on FEP CSC generalize to the Asian population in the United States.
BACKGROUND: Psychosis is an illness characterised by the presence of hallucinations and delusions that can cause distress or a marked change in an individual's behaviour (e.g. social withdrawal, flat or blunted effect). A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is the first time someone experiences these symptoms that can occur at any age, but the condition is most common in late adolescence and early adulthood. This review is concerned with first episode psychosis (FEP) and the early stages of a psychosis, referred to throughout this review as 'recent-onset psychosis.' Specialised early intervention (SEI) teams are community mental health teams that specifically treat people who are experiencing, or have experienced a recent-onset psychosis. The purpose of SEI teams is to intensively treat people with psychosis early in the course of the illness with the goal of increasing the likelihood of recovery and reducing the need for longer-term mental health treatment. SEI teams provide a range of treatments including medication, psychotherapy, psychoeducation, and occupational, educational and employment support, augmented by assertive contact with the service user and small caseloads. Treatment is time limited, usually offered for two to three years, after which service users are either discharged to primary care or transferred to a standard adult community mental health team. A previous Cochrane Review of SEI found preliminary evidence that SEI may be superior to standard community mental health care (described as 'treatment as usual (TAU)' in this review) but these recommendations were based on data from only one trial. This review updates the evidence for the use of SEI services.
OBJECTIVES: To compare specialised early intervention (SEI) teams to treatment as usual (TAU) for people with recent-onset psychosis.
SEARCH METHODS: On 3 October 2018 and 22 October 2019, we searched Cochrane Schizophrenia's study-based register of trials, including registries of clinical trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SEI with TAU for people with recent-onset psychosis. We entered trials meeting these criteria and reporting useable data as included studies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes we calculated the risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and their 95% CIs, or if assessment measures differed for the same construct, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs and one cluster-RCT with a total of 1145 participants. The mean age in the trials was between 23.1 years (RAISE) and 26.6 years (OPUS). The included participants were 405 females (35.4%) and 740 males (64.6%). All trials took place in community mental healthcare settings. Two trials reported on recovery from psychosis at the end of treatment, with evidence that SEI team care may result in more participants in recovery than TAU at the end of treatment (73% versus 52%; RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.97; 2 studies, 194 participants; low-certainty evidence). Three trials provided data on disengagement from services at the end of treatment, with fewer participants probably being disengaged from mental health services in SEI (8%) in comparison to TAU (15%) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.79; 3 studies, 630 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer admissions to psychiatric hospital than TAU at the end of treatment (52% versus 57%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 4 studies, 1145 participants) and low-certainty evidence that SEI may result in fewer psychiatric hospital days (MD -27.00 days, 95% CI -53.68 to -0.32; 1 study, 547 participants). Two trials reported on general psychotic symptoms at the end of treatment, with no evidence of a difference between SEI and TAU, although this evidence is very uncertain (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -4.58 to 3.75; 2 studies, 304 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A different pattern was observed in assessment of general functioning with an end of trial difference that may favour SEI (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66; 2 studies, 467 participants; low-certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether the use of SEI resulted in fewer deaths due to all-cause mortality at end of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.20; 3 studies, 741 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was low risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment in three of the four included trials; the remaining trial had unclear risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention, we considered all trials at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel. Two trials had low risk of bias and two trials had high risk of bias for blinding of outcomes assessments. Three trials had low risk of bias for incomplete outcome data, while one trial had high risk of bias. Two trials had low risk of bias, one trial had high risk of bias, and one had unclear risk of bias for selective reporting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that SEI may provide benefits to service users during treatment compared to TAU. These benefits probably include fewer disengagements from mental health services (moderate-certainty evidence), and may include small reductions in psychiatric hospitalisation (low-certainty evidence), and a small increase in global functioning (low-certainty evidence) and increased service satisfaction (moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence regarding the effect of SEI over TAU after treatment has ended is uncertain. Further evidence investigating the longer-term outcomes of SEI is needed. Furthermore, all the eligible trials included in this review were conducted in high-income countries, and it is unclear whether these findings would translate to low- and middle-income countries, where both the intervention and the comparison conditions may be different.
Despite convincing evidence of short-term symptom control and functional recovery of patients with psychosis after receiving early intervention (EI) services, little is known about the long-term outcomes of EI for these patients. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of EI services in improving long-term outcomes of patients with psychosis. A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Medline, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and EMBASE electronic databases to identify studies that evaluated long-term outcomes of patients with psychosis measured 5 years or beyond after entering the EI service. Of 13,005 articles returned from the search, 14 eligible articles reporting study cohorts from nine EI services in seven countries and regions were identified. Data on study design, patient characteristics, intervention components, and outcomes were extracted and reviewed. Only a few studies reported better longitudinal outcomes for negative symptoms, mortality, employment, and hospitalization in patients received EI services. However, results from cross-sectional measurements provided little evidence for long-term impacts of EI services on clinical and functional outcomes. A dilution effect of benefits over time was also demonstrated in several studies. This review highlights the gap in current EI service provision and suggests possible future directions for service improvement and further research.
IMPORTANCE: Follow-up of participants in randomized trials may be limited by logistic and financial factors. Some important randomized trials have been extended well beyond their original follow-up period by linkage of individual participant information to routinely collected data held in administrative records and registries.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a scoping review of randomized clinical trials extended by record linkage to characterize this literature and explore any additional insights into treatment effectiveness provided by long-term follow-up using record linkage.
DATA SOURCES: A literature search in Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials was performed for the period January 1, 1945, through November 25, 2016.
STUDY SELECTION: Various combinations of search terms were used, as there is no accepted terminology. Determination of study eligibility and extraction of information about trial characteristics and outcomes, for both original and extended trial reports, were performed in duplicate.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Assessment of study eligibility and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers. All analyses were descriptive.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes in the pairs of original and extended trials were categorized according to whether any benefits or harms from interventions were sustained, were lost, or emerged during long-term follow-up.
RESULTS: A total of 113 extended trials were included in the study. Linkage to administrative and registry data extended follow-up by between 1 and 55 years. The most common interventions were pharmaceuticals (47 [41.6%]), surgery (19 [16.8%]), and disease screening (19 [16.8%]). End points most frequently studied through record linkage included mortality (88 [77.9%]), cancer (41 [36.3%]), and cardiovascular events (37 [32.7%]). One hundred four trial extensions (92.0%) were analyzed according to the original trial randomization. The reports provided details of 155 analyses of study outcomes. Seventy-four analyses (47.7%) identified statistically significant benefits in the trial extension phase. In 21 of these (28.4%), benefits were significant only in this period. Null results in both the original and extended trials were seen in 34 of the analyses (21.9%). Loss of significant benefits of an intervention were seen in 12 analyses (7.7%). Statistically significant harms were seen in 16 trial extension analyses (10.3%), and in 14 of these (87.5%), the harms were significant only in the trial extension phase.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Trial extension by linkage to routinely collected data is a versatile underused approach that may add critical insights beyond those of the original trial. Some beneficial and harmful outcomes of interventions are captured only in the extension phase of randomized trials.
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review (SR) provides evidence on pharmacological and psychosocial treatments for schizophrenia.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library databases, PsycINFO®, and included studies through February 2017.
STUDY SELECTION: We included studies comparing second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) with each other or with a first-generation antipsychotic (FGA) and studies comparing psychosocial interventions with usual care in adults with schizophrenia.
DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted study design, year, setting, country, sample size, eligibility criteria, population, clinical and intervention characteristics, results, and funding source.
RESULTS: We included 1 SR of 138 trials (N=47,189) and 24 trials (N=6,672) for SGAs versus SGAs, 1 SR of 111 trials (N=118,503) and 5 trials (N=1,055) for FGAs versus SGAs, and 13 SRs of 271 trials (N=25,050) and 27 trials (n=6,404) for psychosocial interventions. Trials were mostly fair quality and strength of evidence was low or moderate. For drug therapy, the majority of the head-to-head evidence was on older SGAs, with sparse data on SGAs approved in the last 10 years (asenapine, lurasidone, iloperidone, cariprazine, brexpiprazole) and recent long-acting injection (LAI) formulations of aripiprazole and paliperidone. Older SGAs were similar in measures of function, quality of life, mortality, and overall adverse events, except that risperidone LAI had better social function than quetiapine. Core illness symptoms were improved more with olanzapine and risperidone than asenapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone, and more with paliperidone than lurasidone and iloperidone; all were superior to placebo. Risperidone LAI and olanzapine had less withdrawal due to adverse events. Compared with olanzapine and risperidone, haloperidol, the most studied FGA, had similar improvement in core illness symptoms, negative symptoms, symptom response, and remission but greater incidence of adverse event outcomes. In comparison with usual care, most psychosocial interventions reviewed were more effective in improving intervention-targeted outcomes, including core illness symptoms. Various functional outcomes were improved more with assertive community treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy, family interventions, psychoeducation, social skills training, supported employment, and early interventions for first episode psychosis (FEP) than with usual care. Quality of life was improved more with cognitive behavioral therapy and early interventions for FEP than usual care. Relapse was reduced with family interventions, psychoeducation, illness self-management, family interventions, and early interventions for FEP.
CONCLUSIONS: Most comparative evidence on pharmacotherapy relates to the older drugs, with clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone superior on more outcomes than other SGAs. Older SGAs were similar to haloperidol on benefit outcomes but had fewer adverse event outcomes. Most psychosocial interventions improved functional outcomes, quality of life, and core illness symptoms, and several reduced relapse compared with usual care.
Outcomes of psychotic disorders are associated with high personal, familiar, societal and clinical burden. There is thus an urgent clinical and societal need for improving those outcomes. Recent advances in research knowledge have opened new opportunities for ameliorating outcomes of psychosis during its early clinical stages. This paper critically reviews these opportunities, summarizing the state‐of‐the‐art knowledge and focusing on recent discoveries and future avenues for first episode research and clinical interventions. Candidate targets for primary universal prevention of psychosis at the population level are discussed. Potentials offered by primary selective prevention in asymptomatic subgroups (stage 0) are presented. Achievements of primary selected prevention in individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (stage 1) are summarized, along with challenges and limitations of its implementation in clinical practice. Early intervention and secondary prevention strategies at the time of a first episode of psychosis (stage 2) are critically discussed, with a particular focus on minimizing the duration of untreated psychosis, improving treatment response, increasing patients’ satisfaction with treatment, reducing illicit substance abuse and preventing relapses. Early intervention and tertiary prevention strategies at the time of an incomplete recovery (stage 3) are further discussed, in particular with respect to addressing treatment resistance, improving well‐being and social skills with reduction of burden on the family, treatment of comorbid substance use, and prevention of multiple relapses and disease progression. In conclusion, to improve outcomes of a complex, heterogeneous syndrome such as psychosis, it is necessary to globally adopt complex models integrating a clinical staging framework and coordinated specialty care programmes that offer pre‐emptive interventions to high‐risk groups identified across the early stages of the disorder. Only a systematic implementation of these models of care in the national health care systems will render these strategies accessible to the 23 million people worldwide suffering from the most severe psychiatric disorders.
Antecedentes: El manejo intensivo de casos (MCI) es un paquete comunitario de atención con el objetivo de brindar atención a largo plazo a personas con trastornos mentales graves que no requieren la admisión inmediata. El Manejo Intensivo de Casos evolucionó a partir de dos modelos originales de cuidado de la comunidad, el Tratamiento Asertivo Comunitario (ACT) y el Manejo de Casos (CM), donde ICM enfatiza la importancia del pequeño número de casos (menos de 20) y la entrada de alta intensidad. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos de la ICM como un medio para cuidar de personas con enfermedades mentales graves en la comunidad en comparación con los no-ICM (número de casos superior a 20) y con atención comunitaria estándar. No distinguimos entre modelos de ICM. Además, para evaluar si el efecto de la ICM en la hospitalización (número medio de días por mes en el hospital) está influenciado por la fidelidad de la intervención al modelo ACT y por la tasa de uso hospitalario en el lugar donde se realizó el ensayo (nivel basal Del uso hospitalario). Métodos de búsqueda: Se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro de Ensayos del Grupo Cochrane de Esquizofrenia (Cochrane Schizophrenia Group) (última actualización de búsqueda 10 de abril de 2015). CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Todos los ensayos clínicos aleatorios relevantes que se centran en las personas con enfermedad mental grave, de 18 a 65 años de edad y tratados en el entorno de atención comunitaria, donde se compara la ICM con la atención no-ICM o estándar. Recopilación y análisis de datos: Al menos dos revisores seleccionaron de forma independiente los ensayos, evaluaron la calidad y extrajeron los datos. Para los resultados binarios, se calculó la razón de riesgo (RR) y su intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC), en una intención de tratar la base. Para los datos continuos, se estimó la diferencia de medias (MD) entre los grupos y su IC del 95%. Se utilizó un modelo de efectos aleatorios para análisis. Se realizó un análisis de meta-regresión de efectos aleatorios para examinar la asociación de la fidelidad de la intervención al modelo ACT y la tasa de uso hospitalario en el entorno donde se realizó el ensayo con el efecto del tratamiento . Evaluamos la calidad general de los resultados clínicamente importantes usando el enfoque GRADE e investigamos el posible riesgo de sesgo dentro de los ensayos incluidos. La actualización de 2016 incluyó dos estudios más (n = 196) y más publicaciones con datos adicionales para cuatro estudios ya incluidos. La revisión actualizada, por lo tanto, incluye 7524 participantes de 40 ensayos controlados aleatorios (ECA). Encontramos datos relevantes para dos comparaciones: ICM versus atención estándar, y ICM versus no-ICM. La mayoría de los estudios tenían un alto riesgo de notificación selectiva. Ningún estudio proporcionó datos para la recaída o una mejora importante en el estado mental. ICM frente a la atención estándar Cuando se comparó la ICM con la atención estándar para el uso de servicios de resultado, ICM redujo ligeramente el número de días en el hospital por mes (n = 3595, 24 ECA, MD -0,86, IC 95% -1,37 a -0,34, Pruebas de calidad). Del mismo modo, para el estado global de resultados, la ICM redujo el número de personas que abandonaron el estudio con anticipación (n = 1798, 13 ECA, RR 0,68, IC del 95%: 0,58 a 0,79, evidencia de baja calidad). Para los eventos adversos de resultado, la evidencia mostró que ICM puede hacer poca o ninguna diferencia en la reducción de la muerte por suicidio (n = 1456, 9 ECA, RR 0,68, IC del 95%: 0,31 a 1,51, evidencia de baja calidad). Además, para el funcionamiento social del resultado, hubo incertidumbre sobre el efecto de la ICM en el desempleo debido a pruebas de muy baja calidad (n = 1129, 4 ECA, RR 0,70, IC del 95%: 0,49 a 1,0, evidencia de muy baja calidad) .2. ICM versus no ICM Cuando se comparó ICM con no-ICM para el uso del servicio de resultados, hubo pruebas de calidad moderada que ICM probablemente hace poca o ninguna diferencia en el número promedio de días en el hospital por mes (n = 2220, 21 ECA, MD -0,08, IC del 95%: -0,37 a 0,21, evidencia de calidad moderada) o en el número promedio de admisiones (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0,18, IC del 95%: -0,41 a 0,05, A no-ICM. Del mismo modo, los resultados mostraron que la ICM puede reducir el número de participantes que abandonan la intervención tempranamente (n = 1970, 7 ECA, RR 0,70, IC del 95%: 0,52 a 0,95, evidencia de baja calidad) y que ICM puede hacer poca o ninguna diferencia en Reduciendo la muerte por suicidio (n = 1152, 3 ECA, RR 0,88, IC del 95%: 0,27 a 2,84, evidencia de baja calidad). Por último, para el funcionamiento social de los resultados, hubo incertidumbre sobre el efecto de la ICM sobre el desempleo en comparación con los no ICM (n = 73, 1 ECA, RR 1,46, IC del 95% 0,45 a 4,74, evidencia de muy baja calidad) . La fidelidad a la ACT en la meta-regresión encontró que i.) Cuanto más ICM es adherente al modelo de ACT, mejor es en la disminución del tiempo en el hospital (coeficiente de la "fidelidad de la organización" -0.36, IC del 95% -0.66 a -0.07 ); Y ii.) Cuanto mayor es el uso hospitalario de referencia en la población, mejor ICM se encuentra en la disminución del tiempo en el hospital (coeficiente variable de "uso hospitalario de referencia" -0.20; IC del 95%: -0.32 a -0.10). Al combinar ambas variables dentro del modelo, la "fidelidad de la organización" ya no es significativa, pero el resultado del "uso básico del hospital" todavía influye significativamente en el tiempo en el hospital (coeficiente de regresión -0,18; IC del 95%: -0,29 a -0,07; P = 0,0027) . CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Basado en evidencia de muy baja a moderada calidad, la MCI es eficaz para mejorar muchos resultados relevantes para las personas con enfermedad mental severa. En comparación con la atención estándar, ICM puede reducir la hospitalización y aumentar la retención en la atención. También mejoró globalmente el funcionamiento social, aunque el efecto de ICM sobre el estado mental y la calidad de vida sigue siendo poco claro. El manejo intensivo de casos es al menos valioso para las personas con enfermedades mentales severas en el subgrupo de aquellos con un alto nivel de hospitalización (alrededor de cuatro días al mes en los últimos dos años). Los modelos de gestión de casos intensivos con alta fidelidad a la organización original del equipo de ACT fueron más eficaces en la reducción del tiempo en el hospital. Sin embargo, no está claro qué ganancia general ICM proporciona encima de un enfoque menos formal de no ICM. Se justifican más ensayos que comparen ICM actual con atención estándar o sin ICM, sin embargo actualmente no conocemos ninguna revisión comparando la ICM con la atención estándar, y esto debería ser realizado.
Objetivos. Los adultos jóvenes con psicosis temprana quieren seguir papeles normales - la educación y el empleo. Este documento resume la literatura empírica sobre la efectividad de los programas de intervención temprana para los resultados de empleo y educación. Métodos. Se realizó una revisión sistemática de los resultados del empleo / educación para los programas de intervención temprana, distinguiendo tres tipos de programa: (1) los que proporcionan empleo con apoyo, (2) los que prestan servicios profesionales no especificadas y (3) los que no tienen servicios vocacionales. Se resumieron los hallazgos de 28 estudios. Resultados. Once estudios evaluaron programas de intervención temprana que proporcionan empleo con apoyo. En ocho estudios que informaron los resultados de empleo por separado de los resultados educativos, la tasa de empleo durante el seguimiento de los pacientes de empleo con apoyo fue del 49%, en comparación con 29% para los pacientes que reciben servicios habituales. Los dos grupos no mostraron diferencias en la matrícula en la educación. En cuatro estudios controlados, meta-análisis mostró que la tasa de empleo de los participantes de empleo con apoyo fue significativamente mayor que el de los participantes de control, odds ratio = 3,66 [1,93-6,93], p <0,0001. Cinco estudios (cuatro descriptiva y una cuasi-experimental) de los programas de intervención temprana que evalúan los servicios de formación profesional no especificados no fueron concluyentes. Doce estudios de programas de intervención temprana sin servicios vocacionales eran metodológicamente heterogéneos, utilizando diversos métodos para la evaluación de los resultados educativos de formación profesional / y se opone a una síntesis meta-analítica satisfactoria. Entre los estudios con grupos de comparación, 7 de 11 (64%) reportaron resultados vocacional / educación significativas a favor de la intervención temprana sobre los servicios habituales. Conclusiones. En los programas de intervención temprana, apoyó el empleo aumenta moderadamente las tasas de empleo, pero no las tasas de matrícula en la educación. Estas mejoras se suman a los efectos modestos programas de la primera solo tienen en los resultados de formación profesional / educación en comparación con los servicios habituales.
OBJECTIVES: To review and synthesize the currently available research on whether early intervention for psychosis programs reduce the use of inpatient services. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using keywords searches on PubMed, Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (ProQuest), Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO), Social Work Abstracts (EBSCO), Social Science Citations Index (Web of Science), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), and Child Development & Adolescent Studies (EBSCO). To be included, studies had to be peer-reviewed publications in English, examining early intervention programs using a variant of assertive community treatment, with a control/comparison group, and reporting inpatient service use outcomes. The primary outcome extracted number hospitalized and total N. Secondary outcome extracted means and standard deviations. Data were pooled using random effects models. Primary outcome was the occurrence of any hospitalization during treatment. A secondary outcome was the average bed-days used during treatment period. RESULTS: Fifteen projects were identified and included in the study. Results of meta-analysis supported the occurrence of a positive effect for intervention for both outcome measures (any hospitalization OR.: 0.33; 95% CI 0.18-0.63, bed-days usage SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.24). There was significant heterogeneity of effect across the studies. This heterogeneity is due to a handful of studies with unusually positive responses. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that early intervention programs are superior to standard of care, with respect to reducing inpatient service usage. Wider use of these programs may prevent the occurrence of admission for patients experiencing the onset of psychotic symptoms.
OBJETIVO: Una de las mayores barreras para tratar a los pacientes con esquizofrenia es la falta de adherencia al régimen de medicamentos y bajos niveles de conocimiento sobre sus medicamentos y efectos secundarios. Por lo tanto, este documento de práctica basada en la evidencia examinó la eficacia de la psicoeducación grupal para la adherencia de los medicamentos entre los adultos hospitalizados con esquizofrenia en la psiquiatría y la salud mental. Los criterios de selección fueron seleccionar toda la revisión sistemática pertinente y ensayos controlados aleatorios que se centraran en la efectividad de la psicoeducación grupal para los pacientes esquizofrénicos clientela. CONCLUSIONES: La psicoeducación grupal para la adherencia a la medicación ha demostrado ser eficaz para mejorar la adherencia a la medicación entre los adultos hospitalizados con esquizofrenia en entornos psiquiátricos y de salud mental y un efecto positivo en la disminución de las recaídas y la rehospitalización; Y reducción de la duración de la hospitalización. Además, aumenta la calidad de vida, la auto-satisfacción, la autoeficacia y la autoestima entre estos clientes.
The population of persons of color (POC) are increasing in the United States. Unfortunately, POC are significantly impacted by serious mental illness; psychosis represents a mental health disparity among POC. Fortunately, first episode coordinated specialty care (CSC) is an effective treatment for individuals who are in the early phases of a psychotic disorder. This systematic review of the literature examined POC inclusion rates in randomized controlled trials (RCT) examining First Episode Psychosis (FEP) programs. Our review yielded seven articles that met inclusion criteria. Our findings were mixed-researchers conducting RCTs on FEP programs did an excellent job including African American participants suggesting that findings from RCTs on FEP programs may generalize to African American participants. Regarding Latines, they were broadly underrepresented in RCTs on FEP CSC. Based on the data, we cannot definitively conclude to what extent findings from RCTs on FEP CSC generalize to Latines although results from studies that included a reasonable number of Latines offer promising results. Asians were overrepresented in three of the seven studies included in this review; thus it seems that the findings from RCTs on FEP CSC generalize to the Asian population in the United States.
Pregunta de la revisión sistemática»Revisión sistemática de intervenciones
