Screening for psychosis risk in primary mental health care services – Implementation, prevalence and recovery trajectories.
Saved in:
| Title: | Screening for psychosis risk in primary mental health care services – Implementation, prevalence and recovery trajectories. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Newman‐Taylor, Katherine, Maguire, Tess, Smart, Tanya, Bayford, Emma, Gosden, Emily, Addyman, Grace, Bullard, Pete, Simmons‐Dauvin, Miriam, Margoum, Morad, Smart, Ben, Graves, Elizabeth |
| Source: | British Journal of Clinical Psychology. Nov2024, Vol. 63 Issue 4, p589-602. 14p. |
| Subjects: | Risk assessment, Psychotherapy, Mental health services, Research funding, Descriptive statistics, Psychoses, Medical screening, Early diagnosis |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom |
| Abstract: | Objectives: Early interventions improve outcomes for people at high risk of psychosis and are likely to be cost saving. This group tends to seek help for emotional problems – depression and anxiety – via primary care services, where early detection methods are poor. We sought to determine prevalence rates of high risk for psychosis in UK primary care mental health services and clinical outcomes following routinely delivered psychological therapies. Methods: We used a brief screen designed for settings with low base rates and significant time constraints to determine prevalence of high risk for psychosis in UK 'Talking Therapies' services. We examined socio‐demographic characteristics, presenting problems and recovery trajectories for this group, compared with people not at risk of psychosis. Results: A 2‐item screen selected for specificity yielded a prevalence rate of 3% in primary care mental health services. People at elevated risk of psychosis were younger and more likely to report at least one long‐term physical condition. This group presented with higher levels of depression, anxiety and trauma symptoms at assessment and were less likely to have recovered at the end of treatment, compared to people not at risk. Conclusions: Very brief screening tools can be implemented in busy health care settings. The 3% of referrals to UK primary care psychological therapies services at elevated risk of psychosis typically present with more severe symptoms and greater levels of comorbidity and may require augmented interventions to recover fully. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of British Journal of Clinical Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objectives: Early interventions improve outcomes for people at high risk of psychosis and are likely to be cost saving. This group tends to seek help for emotional problems – depression and anxiety – via primary care services, where early detection methods are poor. We sought to determine prevalence rates of high risk for psychosis in UK primary care mental health services and clinical outcomes following routinely delivered psychological therapies. Methods: We used a brief screen designed for settings with low base rates and significant time constraints to determine prevalence of high risk for psychosis in UK 'Talking Therapies' services. We examined socio‐demographic characteristics, presenting problems and recovery trajectories for this group, compared with people not at risk of psychosis. Results: A 2‐item screen selected for specificity yielded a prevalence rate of 3% in primary care mental health services. People at elevated risk of psychosis were younger and more likely to report at least one long‐term physical condition. This group presented with higher levels of depression, anxiety and trauma symptoms at assessment and were less likely to have recovered at the end of treatment, compared to people not at risk. Conclusions: Very brief screening tools can be implemented in busy health care settings. The 3% of referrals to UK primary care psychological therapies services at elevated risk of psychosis typically present with more severe symptoms and greater levels of comorbidity and may require augmented interventions to recover fully. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 01446657 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/bjc.12490 |
