Search

Background: Migration is a robust risk factor for developing a psychotic disorder, yet there is a paucity of research on the outcomes of migrants who develop a psychotic disorder. Identifying sub-groups within FEP cohorts who have a poorer outcome, could assist in the development and delivery of more targeted interventions. Aims: There is a paucity of research on the outcomes of migrants who develop a psychotic disorder. This study aimed to evaluate a broad range of outcomes for those with a FEP who migrated to the Republic of Ireland, including: (i) symptomatic; (ii) functional; (iii) hospitalisation and (iv) engagement with psychosocial services. Methods: All individuals with a FEP aged 18 to 65 who presented between 01.02.2006 and 01.07.2014 were included. Structured and validated instruments were used to measure positive, negative, depressive symptoms and insight. Results: Of the 573 individuals with a FEP, 22.3% were first-generation migrants and 63.4% ( n = 363) were followed up at 1 year. At this time, 72.4% of migrants were in remission of positive psychotic symptoms compared to 78.5% of the Irish born ( OR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.50–1.41], p = .51). In relation to negative symptoms, 60.5% of migrants were in remission compared to 67.2% of the Irish born ( OR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.44–1.27], p = .283). There was no difference in the severity of positive, negative or depressive symptoms between groups and there was a trend for the Irish born to have better insight ( p = .056). The functional outcomes were similar across groups. One third of migrants were admitted to hospital compared to 28.7% of the Irish born ( OR = 1.24, 95% CI [0.73–2.13], p = .426). Just over half of both groups attended CBT and 46.2% of caregivers for migrants attended the psychoeducation programme, compared to 39.7% for the Irish born ( OR = 1.30, 95% CI [0.79–2.16], p = .306). Conclusions: These findings demonstrate that migrants have broadly similar outcomes to the native-born populations, however there is still considerable scope for the outcomes for all individuals affected by psychotic disorders to be improved.

Objectives The field of early psychosis has undergone considerable expansion over the last few decades and has a strong evidence base of effectiveness. Like all areas of healthcare, however, early psychosis services need to more consistently deliver higher quality care to achieve better outcomes for patients and families. A national clinical research infrastructure is urgently required to enable the sector to deliver the highest quality care and expand and translate evidence more quickly and efficiently. This paper describes the establishment of the Australian Early Psychosis Collaborative Consortium (AEPCC) that aims to achieve this. Conclusion AEPCC is the first of its kind in Australia (and internationally). It will deliver the required clinical research infrastructure through the implementation of a clinical quality registry, clinical trials and translation network, and lived experience network. AEPCC will provide a critical resource to better understand the state of early psychosis care, and trial new interventions on a scale that has not previously been possible in Australia.

Objective: Early intervention for psychosis services result in superior outcomes in the domains of symptomatic and functional recovery, hospitalisation and employment compared to standard services; however, the optimal duration of care with these services is unknown. Knowledge on the discharge destinations, specifically the proportion discharged to high- and low-intensity services, could provide insights into the proportion of who may require a longer tenure of care. This study aimed to determine (1) the discharge destinations from early intervention for psychosis services and (2) baseline and intra-episode factors associated with discharge to the secondary care/adult mental health service. Methodology: This study was conducted at the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre in Melbourne and included all young people treated by the service with a first episode of psychosis over a 6-year period. Discharge destinations were categorised according to high-intensity services, namely, secondary mental health care, or lower intensity services, such as private practitioners or primary care. Results: A total of 1101 young people with a first episode of psychosis were included in the study, of whom 58.8% were male and the median age was 20.0 years (interquartile range: 17–22). After a median of 95.4 weeks (interquartile range: 66.7–105.7), 36.6% were discharged to the adult mental health services, which was associated with being not in employment, education or training at presentation (odds ratio = 1.71, 95% confidence interval [1.23, 2.37]); experiencing a relapse (odds ratio = 1.76, 95% confidence interval [1.24, 2.49]); and being admitted to a mental health unit (odds ratio = 3.98, 95% confidence interval [2.61, 6.09]). Young people who lived with their parents were less likely to be discharged to secondary care services (odds ratio = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [0.37, 0.73]), as were those who were achieving symptomatic remission within 12 weeks (odds ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval [0.43, 0.83]). Migrant status and the duration of untreated psychosis were not associated with discharge destination. Conclusion: These findings indicate that there is a sizable, identifiable minority who may benefit from a longer episode of care with early intervention for psychosis services.

Aims: Young adults with serious mental illness (SMI) are thought to be socially excluded. However, psychometric measures of social inclusion have not been employed to examine group differences relative to peers from the general community. The aim of this study was to employ such a measure to determine differences in social inclusion between young adults with SMI and peers from the general community. Methods: A cross-sectional hierarchical logistic regression was conducted to identify which dimensions and individual indicators from the Filia Social Inclusion Measure (F-SIM) discriminated between n = 152 young adults aged 18–25 from the general community ( M = 21.36, SD = 2.16) and n = 159 young adults aged 18–25 with SMI ( M = 21.13, SD = 2.21). Results: Group membership was accounted for by Interpersonal Connections (Nagelkerke R2 = .32), Vocational & Financial Security (Nagelkerke R2 = .32) and Healthy Independent Lifestyle (Nagelkerke R2 = .08) dimensions of the F-SIM. Relative to young adults from the general community, those with SMI were five times less likely to feel they had friends who would call on them in a crisis, odds ratio (OR) = .19 (95%CI = .04, .53), p = .04, almost five times more likely to live with their parents, OR = 4.79 (95%CI = 1.98,11.15), p = .004, almost four times less likely to have worked/studied any time over the past 12 months, OR = .27 (95%CI = .11,.64), p Conclusion: Young adults with SMI are socially excluded relative to peers from the general community in terms of interpersonal connections, vocational engagement, autonomy/independence and housing stability. In addition to the well-established focus on vocational engagement, interventions to improve social inclusion in this population must promote reciprocity within social relationships and healthy autonomy/independence (including stable housing).

Background: Individuals with psychotic disorders are represented more in the lower social classes, yet there is conflicting evidence to whether these individuals drift into the lower social classes or whether lower social class is a risk factor for developing psychosis. The aim of this study was to examine whether the social class at birth is a risk factor for developing psychosis. Methods: We included individuals with a first episode of psychosis (FEP) whose social class at birth was determined from birth records. We employed a case-control study design and also compared the distribution of the social classes at birth of the cases to that of the general population. Results: A total of 380 individuals with an FEP and 760 controls were included in the case-control study. The odds ratio for developing an FEP associated with social class (low vs high) was .62 (95% confidence interval (CI): .46–.85, p < .001), indicating that individuals from a lower social class at birth have a reduced risk of psychosis. Individuals born between 1961 and 1980 with an FEP were more likely to be from a higher social class at birth compared to the general population (60.8% vs 36.7%, χ2 = 60.85, df = 1, p < .001). However, this association was not observed for those born between 1981 and 1990. Conclusion: A higher social class at birth is associated with a greater risk for developing a psychotic disorder; however, this effect may show temporal variation.