Ethnic Minority Status, Age-at-Immigration and Psychosis Risk in Rural Environments: Evidence From the SEPEA Study.

Objective: Several ethnic minority groups experience elevated rates of first-episode psychosis (FEP), but most studies have been conducted in urban settings. We investigated whether incidence varied by ethnicity, generation status, and age-at-immigration in a diverse, mixed rural, and urban setting. Method: We identified 687 people, 16-35 years, with an ICD-10 diagnosis of FEP, presenting to Early Intervention Psychosis services in the East of England over 2 million person-years. We used multilevel Poisson regression to examine incidence variation by ethnicity, rural-urban setting, generation status, and age-at-immigration, adjusting for several confounders including age, sex, socioeconomic status, population density, and deprivation. Results: People of black African (incidence rate ratio: 4.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.63-6.25), black Caribbean (4.63; 95% CI: 2.38-8.98) and Pakistani (2.31; 95% CI: 1.35-3.94) origins were at greatest FEP risk relative to the white British population, after multivariable adjustment. Non-British white migrants were not at increased FEP risk (1.00; 95% CI: 0.77-1.32). These patterns were independently present in rural and urban settings. For first-generation migrants, migration during childhood conferred greatest risk of psychotic disorders (2.20; 95% CI: 1.33-3.62). Conclusions: Elevated psychosis risk in several visible minority groups could not be explained by differences in postmigratory socioeconomic disadvantage. These patterns were observed across rural and urban areas of our catchment, suggesting that elevated psychosis risk for some ethnic minority groups is not a result of selection processes influencing rural-urban living. Timing of exposure to migration during childhood, an important social and neurodevelopmental window, may also elevate risk.

The Epidemiology of First-Episode Psychosis in Early Intervention in Psychosis Services: Findings From the Social Epidemiology of Psychoses in East Anglia [SEPEA] Study.

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have characterized the epidemiology of first-episode psychoses in rural or urban settings since the introduction of early intervention psychosis services. To address this, the authors conducted a naturalistic cohort study in England, where such services are well established. METHOD: All new first-episode psychosis cases, 16-35 years old, presenting to early intervention psychosis services in the East of England were identified during 2 million person-years follow-up. Presence of ICD-10 F10-33 psychotic disorder was confirmed using OPCRIT [operational criteria for psychotic illness]. Incidence rate ratios were estimated following multivariable Poisson regression, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, neighborhood-level deprivation, and population density. RESULTS: Of 1,005 referrals, 687 participants (68.4%) fulfilled epidemiological and diagnostic criteria for first-episode psychosis (34.0 new cases per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI=31.5-36.6). Median age at referral was similar for men (22.5 years; interquartile range: 19.5-26.7) and women (23.4 years; interquartile range: 19.5-29.1); incidence rates were highest for men and women before 20 years of age. Rates increased for ethnic minority groups (incidence rate ratio: 1.4; 95% CI=1.1-1.6), as well as with lower socioeconomic status (incidence rate ratio: 1.3; 95% CI=1.2-1.4) and in more urban (incidence rate ratio: 1.4;95%CI=1.0-1.8) and deprived (incidence rate ratio: 2.1; 95% CI=1.3-3.3) neighborhoods, after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Pronounced variation in psychosis incidence, peaking before 20 years old, exists in populations served by early intervention psychosis services. Excess rates were restricted to urban and deprived communities, suggesting that a threshold of socioenvironmental adversity may be necessary to increase incidence. This robust epidemiology can inform service development in various settings about likely population-level need.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tailored intensive liaison between primary and secondary care to identify individuals at risk of a first psychotic illness (the LEGs study): a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners are usually the first health professionals to be contacted by people with early signs of psychosis. We aimed to assess whether increased liaison between primary and secondary care improves the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of detection of people with, or at high risk of developing, a first psychotic illness. METHODS: Our Liaison and Education in General Practices (LEGs) study was a cluster-randomised controlled trial of primary care practices (clusters) in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, UK. Consenting practices were randomly allocated (1:1) to a 2 year low-intensity intervention (a postal campaign, consisting of biannual guidelines to help identify and refer individuals with early signs of psychosis) or a high-intensity intervention, which additionally included a specialist mental health professional who liaised with every practice and a theory-based educational package. Practices were not masked to group allocation. Practices that did not consent to be randomly assigned comprised a practice-as-usual (PAU) group. The primary outcome was number of referrals of patients at high risk of developing psychosis to the early intervention service per practice site. New referrals were assessed clinically and stratified into those who met criteria for high risk or first-episode psychotic illness (FEP; together: psychosis true positives), and those who did not fulfil such criteria for psychosis (false positives). Referrals from PAU practices were also analysed. We assessed cost-effectiveness with decision analytic modelling in terms of the incremental cost per additional true positive identified. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN70185866. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2009, and Sept 7, 2010, 54 of 104 eligible practices provided consent and between Feb 16, 2010, and Feb 11, 2011, these practices were randomly allocated to interventions (28 to low intensity and 26 to high intensity); the remaining 50 practices comprised the PAU group. Two high-intensity practices were excluded from the analysis. In the 2 year intervention period, high-intensity practices referred more FEP cases than did low-intensity practices (mean 1.25 [SD 1.2] for high intensity vs 0.7 [0.9] for low intensity; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.9, 95% CI 1.05-3.4, p=0.04), although the difference was not statistically significant for individuals at high risk of psychosis (0.9 [1.0] vs 0.5 [1.0]; 2.2, 0.9-5.1, p=0.08). For high risk and FEP combined, high-intensity practices referred both more true-positive (2.2 [1.7] vs 1.1 [1.7]; 2.0, 1.1-3.6, p=0.02) and false-positive (2.3 [2.4] vs 0.9 [1.2]; 2.6, 1.3-5.0, p=0.005) cases. Referral patterns did not differ between low-intensity and PAU practices. Total cost per true-positive referral in the 2 year follow-up was £26,785 in high-intensity practices, £27,840 in low-intensity practices, and £30,007 in PAU practices. INTERPRETATION: This intensive intervention to improve liaison between primary and secondary care for people with early signs of psychosis was clinically and cost effective. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.