Search

Objective: Although early intervention (EI) programs for psychosis invest in clients remaining engaged in treatment, disengagement remains a concern. It is not entirely clear whether immigrants are likelier to disengage. The rates and predictors of disengagement for immigrant vis-à-vis non-immigrant clients in a Canadian EI setting were analyzed.Method: 297 clients were included in a time-to-event analysis with Cox Proportional Hazards regression models. Immigrant status (first- or second-generation immigrant or non-immigrant), age, gender, education, substance abuse, family contact, social and material deprivation and medication non-adherence were tested as predictors of service disengagement.Results: 24.2% (n=72) of the clients disengaged from services before completing two years. Disengagement rates did not differ between first-generation immigrants (23.3%), second-generation immigrants (22.7%) and non-immigrants (25.3%). For all clients, only medication non-adherence predicted disengagement (HR=3.81, 95% CI 2.37-6.14). For first-generation immigrants, age (HR=1.17, 95% CI 1.02-1.34) and medication non-adherence (HR=2.92, 95% CI 1.09-7.85) were significant predictors. For second-generation immigrants, material deprivation (HR=1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.05) and medication non-adherence (HR=11.07, 95% CI 3.20-38.22) were significant.Conclusion: Disengagement rates may be similar between immigrants and non-immigrants, but their reasons for disengagement may differ. Medication adherence was an important predictor for all, but the role of various sociodemographic factors differed by group. Sustaining all clients' engagement in EI programs may therefore require multi-pronged approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the reliability, validity and factor structure of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE), a 42-item self-report questionnaire. We analyzed the internal consistency of the CAPE to determine whether the 3-factor structure (positive, negative and depressive symptoms) found by the CAPE authors would also be found in our sample. Method: A sample of 2275 individuals from the general community in the Montreal area completed the questionnaire in either French or English. Results: The internal consistencies of the original three subscales were good and the confirmatory factor models had a good fit. The exploratory factor analysis suggested a 3–5-factor solution, without improving the alternative factor structures. The 4-factor solution separated positive symptoms into factors we called ‘bizarre positive symptoms’ and ‘social delusions’, and the 5-factor solution separated positive symptoms further and included a ‘popular psychic beliefs’ factor. Results suggest that the scalability might be improved by shortening the original questionnaire to 23 items with the same 3 original scales. Conclusion: We support the internal consistency of the CAPE. Although alternative scaling (4 and 5 factors) did not improve the model fit, researchers interested in distinguishing 3 factors of positive symptoms could find utility in these two new scales. Finally, reducing the number of CAPE items could be useful for shorter surveys. Future studies should test the implications of these suggestions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]