Economic impact of services for first‐episode psychosis: a decision model approach

  title={Economic impact of services for first‐episode psychosis: a decision model approach},
  author={Paul McCrone and Martin Knapp and Sujith Dhanasiri},
  journal={Early Intervention in Psychiatry},
Aim: To assess the impact of early intervention (EI) services on service costs for people with first‐episode psychosis. 

Early intervention for first‐episode psychosis: broadening the scope of economic estimates

To explore the economic impacts of early intervention in England on outcomes and costs for people with first‐episode psychosis, a large number of patients with first-episode psychosis are referred to charity.

The economic impact of early intervention in psychosis services for children and adolescents

To develop and populate a plausible model of the impact of early intervention (EI) for children and adolescents with psychosis to estimate potential short‐term health‐related cost savings compared to

Early intervention services in psychosis: from evidence to wide implementation

Early intervention (EI) in psychosis is a comprehensive and evidence‐based approach aimed at detection and treatment of psychotic symptoms in their early stages. This paper presents core features and

Early intervention in psychosis: From clinical intervention to health system implementation

Basic aspects of EIP services are presented, challenges to their implementation are discussed and ideas and strategies to overcome some of these obstacles are presented.

Cost‐effectiveness of treating first‐episode psychosis: five‐year follow‐up results from an Italian early intervention programme

This study investigated the cost‐effectiveness of treatment in an early intervention programme in comparison to standard care to result in the reduction of illness severity in patients with schizophrenia.

Why invest in early psychosis intervention services?

The author reflects on the importance of early psychosis intervention services and refers to a study which showed that early intervention services may save about 14,000 British pounds per patient to the mental health sector.

Applying economic models to estimate local economic benefits of improved coverage of early intervention for psychosis

This study aimed to estimate associated local economic benefits of FEP and CHR‐P services compared with standard care.

Early intervention in psychosis: another triumph of hope over experience?

The authors investigate the evidence for and against EIP services and discuss how societal/family issues can also strongly influence mental health.

Mental health promotion and mental illness prevention: the economic case

Mental ill health is the largest single cause of disability in the UK, contributing almost 23% of the overall burden of disease compared to about 16% each for cancer and cardiovascular disease. The

Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in psychosis: systematic review

There is consistent evidence that the implementation of EIP services might be a cost-effective alternative across different health systems, nevertheless, such evidence derives from heterogeneous and sometimes methodologically flawed studies, reducing the certainty of such statement.



Is phase‐specific, community‐oriented treatment of early psychosis‐ an economically viable method of improving outcome?

It is concluded that phase‐specific, community‐oriented treatment of early psychosis is an economically viable method of improving outcome and should be considered as a viable treatment option.

Cost implications of specific and non‐specific treatment for young persons at ultra high risk of developing a first episode of psychosis

Cost implications of providing psychological and pharmacological intervention for individuals at UHR for psychosis compared with minimal psychological treatment are reported.

Impact of a Specialized Early Intervention Service for Psychotic Disorders on Patient Characteristics, Service Use, and Hospital Costs in a Defined Catchment Area

Introducing a specialized early intervention program may be beneficial to patients and to the health care system, and longer term and more detailed data may be required.

Specialised care for early psychosis: Symptoms, social functioning and patient satisfaction

Outcomes for the participants treated by the early onset team were significantly better at 18 months for aspects of social and vocational functioning, satisfaction, quality of life and medication adherence, which provides support for current policy.

Reducing the duration of untreated first-episode psychosis: effects on clinical presentation.

It is possible to reduce the DUP for first-episode patients in a defined health care area through the introduction of an early detection (ED) program, compared with parallel health care areas without an ED program (No-ED).

The Lambeth Early Onset (LEO) Team: randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of specialised care for early psychosis

Limited evidence shows that a team delivering specialised care for patients with early psychosis is superior to standard care for maintaining contact with professionals and for reducing readmissions to hospital.

Prevention of negative symptom psychopathologies in first-episode schizophrenia: two-year effects of reducing the duration of untreated psychosis.

Reducing the DUP has effects on the course of symptoms and functioning, including negative symptoms, suggesting secondary prevention of the negative psychopathologies in first-episode schizophrenia.

Randomized controlled trial of interventions designed to reduce the risk of progression to first-episode psychosis in a clinical sample with subthreshold symptoms.

More specific pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy reduces the risk of early transition to psychosis in young people at ultra-high risk, although their relative contributions could not be determined.

A randomised multicentre trial of integrated versus standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness

At one year's follow-up, psychotic symptoms changed favourably to a mean of 1.09 (standard deviation 1.27) with an estimated mean difference between groups of −0.31 (95% confidence interval −0-0.07, P = 0.02) in favour of integrated treatment.