Article

Rate and predictors of service disengagement in an epidemiological first-episode psychosis cohort

Département Universitaire de Psychiatrie Adulte, Université de Lausanne, Clinique de Cery, Switzerland.
Schizophrenia Research (Impact Factor: 4.43). 03/2010; 118(1-3):256-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.schres.2010.01.032
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the prevalence and predictors of service disengagement in a treated epidemiological cohort of first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients.
The Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) in Australia admitted 786 FEP patients from January 1998 to December 2000. Treatment at EPPIC is scheduled for 18 months. Data were collected from patients' files using a standardized questionnaire. Seven hundred four files were available; 44 were excluded, because of a non-psychotic diagnosis at endpoint (n=43) or missing data on service disengagement (n=1). Rate of service disengagement was the outcome of interest, as well as pre-treatment, baseline, and treatment predictors of service disengagement, which were examined via Cox proportional hazards models.
154 patients (23.3%) disengaged from service. A past forensic history (Hazard ratio [HR]=1.69; 95%CI 1.17-2.45), lower severity of illness at baseline (HR=0.59; 95%CI 0.48-0.72), living without family at discharge (HR=1.75; 95%CI 1.22-2.50) and persistence of substance use disorder during treatment (HR=2.30; 95%CI 1.45-3.66) were significant predictors of disengagement from service.
While engagement strategies are a core element in the treatment of first-episode psychosis, particular attention should be paid to these factors associated with disengagement. Involvement of the family in the treatment process, and focusing on reduction of substance use, need to be pursued in early intervention services.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
97 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES This review examined rates and definitions of disengagement among services for first-episode psychosis (FEP) and identified the most relevant demographic and clinical predictors of disengagement. METHODS A comprehensive search for and review of published studies that reported rates and predictors of disengagement within FEP services were conducted. The databases PubMed (1966-2012) and PsycINFO (1882-2012) were searched. Relevant terms were used to search the Internet and the reference sections of relevant papers for other pertinent studies. Independent searches for recent publications by leading researchers in the field were also conducted. RESULTS Ten articles were included in the review. There was a lack of consensus on a clear definition of engagement and disengagement. However, despite differences in definitions and study settings, the evidence reviewed indicates that approximately 30% of individuals with FEP disengage from services. Variables that were consistently found to exert an influence on disengagement across studies were duration of untreated psychosis, symptom severity at baseline, insight, substance abuse and dependence, and involvement of a family member. CONCLUSIONS Given the importance of continuity of care for FEP, there is a need for a clearly defined and agreed measurement of service engagement and disengagement across FEP services. In particular, those who enter an FEP program without family involvement and support as well as those who maintain persistent substance abuse are at higher risk of disengagement. Early identification of such individuals and the development of approaches to reduce risk of service disengagement are likely to increase the effectiveness of these services.
    Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 02/2014; 65(5). DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.201200570 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to assess patterns and correlates of family variables in 31 adolescents treated for their first episode of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (early-onset schizophrenia [EOS]). Expressed emotion, perceived criticism, and rearing style were assessed. Potential correlates were patient psychopathology, premorbid adjustment, illness duration, quality of life (QoL), sociodemographic variables, patient and caregiver "illness concept," and caregiver personality traits and support. Families were rated as critical more frequently by patients than raters (55% vs. 13%). Perceived criticism was associated with worse QoL in relationship with parents and peers. An adverse rearing style was associated with a negative illness concept in patients, particularly with less trust in their physician. Future research should examine perceived criticism as a predictor of relapse and indicator of adolescents with EOS who need extended support and treatment. Rearing style should be carefully observed because of its link with patients' illness concept and, potentially, to service engagement and medication adherence.
    Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease 09/2014; 202(11). DOI:10.1097/NMD.0000000000000209 · 1.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives This study aims to examine the prevalence and predictors of disengagement in a longitudinal cohort of first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients. Methods Seven hundred FEP patients aged 15 to 25 enrolled into the Early Assessment Service for Young People with Psychosis (EASY) from 2001 to 2003 were recruited into the study. Data on sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, baseline symptoms and functioning and medication adherence were collected. Rate and predictors of service disengagement were the outcomes of interest. Predictors were examined using Cox proportional hazards model. Results Ninety four patients (13%) were disengaged from the EASY program. Fewer negative symptoms at initial presentation, a diagnosis other than schizophrenia-spectrum disorder and poorer medication compliance in the first month of treatment were significant predictors of disengagement from service. Conclusions Early intervention teams should pay attention to factors associated with disengagement, and monitor at risk patients closely to detect signs of non-adherence.
    Schizophrenia Research 03/2014; 153(1-3). DOI:10.1016/j.schres.2014.01.033 · 4.43 Impact Factor