A qualitative study exploring personal recovery meaning and the potential influence of clinical recovery status on this meaning 20 years after a first-episode psychosis.

PURPOSE: Long-term data on recovery conceptualisation in psychotic illness are needed to support mental health services to organise themselves according to recovery-oriented frameworks. To our knowledge, no previous research has investigated how first-episode psychosis (FEP) service users (sampled across psychotic illness type) perceive recovery beyond 5 years after diagnosis. We aimed to explore personal recovery meaning with individuals 20 years after their FEP and examine the potential influence of clinical recovery status on how they defined recovery (i.e. personal recovery). METHODS: Twenty participants were purposefully sampled from an epidemiologically representative FEP incidence cohort. At 20-year follow-up, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 cohort members who met full 'functional recovery criteria' (Clinically Recovered Group) and 10 who did not (Not Clinically Recovered Group). A thematic analysis was performed to develop shared themes and group-specific sub-themes to capture agreement and divergence between groups. RESULTS: Five shared themes were produced: pursuing balance in conflict, generating meaning in life, experiencing a dynamic personal relationship with time, redressing inequality while managing added challenges/vulnerability, and directing life from resilience to flourishing. The five group-specific sub-themes developed illuminate differences in the meaning ascribed to personal recovery by each group. CONCLUSION: Findings emphasise the role of time in how personal recovery is conceptualised by service users and identify ways clinical recovery may influence personal recovery meaning in FEP at mid-later life. Mental health services failing to consider temporal changes in meaning-making and discounting clinical recovery risk ignoring key factors affecting personal recovery.

Prescribing pattern of antipsychotic medication for first-episode psychosis: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines for antipsychotic use in first-episode psychosis (FEP) recommend that medication be chosen initially on the basis of side effect profile with doses at the lower end of the range. Our objective was to describe the pattern of antipsychotic use in FEP over a period of 21 years in the context of changing clinical guidelines and the development of specialist early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services. SETTING: A community-based mental health service in South County Dublin (population 187 000) and a large private hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 465 patients with FEP (146 from an epidemiological study (1995-1999) and 319 from a specialist EIP service (2005-2016)). Treatment with antipsychotic medication did not exceed 30 days at study entry. OUTCOME MEASURES: This is a descriptive study of prescribing practices in the context of service development and changing guidelines. RESULTS: First-generation antipsychotics were prescribed for 65% of the early cohort compared with 4.3% of the EIP cohort. Olanzapine was initially prescribed for 79.7% of EIP patients. Initial doses of medication were frequently low (≤50% British National Formulary (BNF) maximum) in both cohorts (71% and 78.6%). The demographic and clinical factors investigated did not influence the initial choice of antipsychotic medication significantly. Univariate logistic regression analysis suggested inpatient treatment setting was associated with a higher initial dose (>50% BNF maximum) of antipsychotic medication. Increasing dose requirements over the first month of engagement with an EIP service was associated with poorer global functioning at baseline, greater positive symptoms at baseline and the inpatient treatment setting. However, these associations were not seen in the multivariable model. CONCLUSIONS: Second-generation antipsychotic prescribing predominates, but guidelines are often overlooked when choosing olanzapine notwithstanding lower initial dosages. EIP services should include proactive support for optimising medicines in line with evidence-based guidelines.

Clozapine use - has practice changed?

BACKGROUND: One-third of individuals with schizophrenia have treatment-resistant illness. Of these, up to 60% will respond to clozapine treatment. AIMS: This study retrospectively examined clozapine prescribing patterns against National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines as treatment-resistant illness emerged in a first-episode psychosis cohort. METHODS: A total of 339 individuals with a first-episode psychosis were included in the study. Clozapine prescribing patterns were compared against the NICE guidelines and the impact of clozapine use on one index of service utilisation (hospitalisation) was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 32 individuals (9.4%) from the cohort were prescribed clozapine. The mean time to clozapine trial was 2.1 years (SD 1.95; range 0.17-6.25). The mean number of adequate trials of antipsychotic prior to starting clozapine was 2.74 (SD 1.13; range 1-5). Following clozapine initiation, mean hospital admissions per year reduced from 2.3 to 0.3 (p=0.00). Mean hospital days pre- and post-clozapine also reduced (147 vs. 53; p=0.00). In total, 18 patients discontinued clozapine use during follow-up - 5 temporarily and 13 permanently. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are being prescribed clozapine earlier than previously demonstrated, though delays are still evident, and many patients discontinue treatment. More work needs to be undertaken to understand and address factors which lead to its discontinuation.

The iHOPE-20 study: mortality in first episode psychosis-a 20-year follow-up of the Dublin first episode cohort.

PURPOSE: Increased mortality rates have been found in those with a diagnosis of psychosis; studies suggest a shortened life expectancy of up to 20 years less than that of the general population. This study aimed to investigate the mortality of a first episode psychosis cohort at 20-year follow-up, compare it to that of the general Irish population, and explore whether the mortality gap has changed over time. METHODS: 171 individuals diagnosed with a first episode psychosis identified between 1995 and 1999 in a community mental health service were traced. Mortality was established by matching death certificates to deceased cohort members (using name, age at date of death, and address at date of death). Date of first presentation to service was used as date of entry point and date of death or end of follow-up as the end point. RESULTS: Of the 171 cases there were 20 deaths during follow-up. Nine deaths were attributed to natural causes; 7 to unnatural causes; and 4 were unknown. Comparing standardised mortality rates at 20-year follow-up to those at 12 year showed a reduction in rates over time. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that the mortality gap in people with schizophrenia and other psychoses remains high, especially in young males.

The iHOPE-20 study: Relationships between and prospective predictors of remission, clinical recovery, personal recovery and resilience 20 years on from a first episode psychosis.

OBJECTIVE: Knowledge of outcome in psychotic illness is limited by the paucity of very long-term epidemiologically representative studies of incidence first episode psychosis (FEP) cohorts that measure and compare outcomes reflecting modern clinical practice, mental health policy and research agendas. Our study aimed to address this gap. METHOD: iHOPE-20 is a prospective 20-year follow-up study of a FEP incidence cohort (N = 171) conducted between 2014 and 2017 in Ireland. Data from previous studies and medical records were used to recruit cohort members. We assessed remission, clinical recovery, personal recovery and resilience at 20 years; explored the relationships between these outcomes and examined the predictive value of baseline characteristics in determining them. RESULTS: At follow-up, 20 out of 171 cohort members (11.70%) were deceased. We assessed 80 out of 151 alive cohort members (53% recruitment rate); 65% were in remission; 35.2% were in Full Functional Recovery and 53.7% confirmed they were fully recovered according to their personal definition of recovery. A complex array of relationships between outcomes was found. Outcomes were better for people who had a short duration of untreated psychosis, displayed higher premorbid social adjustment (between the ages of 5-11) and at baseline, were older, not living alone, in full-time employment, given a non-affective diagnosis, and had lower Global Assessment of Functioning scores. CONCLUSION: Among participants, full remission of psychotic symptoms and personally defined recovery was not just possible but likely in the very long term. However, attaining positive functional outcomes and building resilience in FEP remain key challenges for mental health services.

'Recovery' in the Real World: Service User Experiences of Mental Health Service Use and Recommendations for Change 20 Years on from a First Episode Psychosis.

Little is known about how recovery oriented policy and legislative changes influence service users' perceptions of mental health care over time. Although the recovery approach is endorsed in many countries, qualitative research examining its impact on service use experiences has been lacking. This study aimed to explore this impact as well as experiences of service utilisation and suggestions for change with people diagnosed with a First Episode Psychosis between 1995 and 1999. Participants had used services during the 10 year period prior to, and 10 years post, policy and legislative shifts to the recovery approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 participants who met criteria for 'full functional recovery' and 10 who did not. Data were analysed using Thematic Networks Analysis to develop Basic, Organising, and Global Themes. Over time, recovered participants perceived an improvement in service quality through the 'humanising' of treatment and non-recovered participants experienced their responsibility in recovery being recognised, but felt abandoned to the recovery approach. Findings suggest the importance of viewing service users as demonstrating personhood and having societal value; examining the personal meaning of psychotic experiences; and matching expectations with what services can feasibly provide. The implementation and the principal tenets of the recovery approach warrant further investigation.

Clozapine Use in a Cohort of First-Episode Psychosis.

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND: For approximately one third of individuals treated for psychosis or schizophrenia, antipsychotic medications will have little or no therapeutic benefit. Clozapine remains the sole medication approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and studies have demonstrated its superior efficacy in reducing psychotic symptoms. METHODS/PROCEDURES: Data were collected from the medical records of people who originally presented with a first-episode psychosis between 1995 and 1999 (N = 171). Data were obtained from first presentation up to December 31, 2013 or until the patient was discharged or transferred. Information on service use and physical health was gathered using a data collection template designed specifically for this audit. FINDINGS/RESULTS: Twenty-eight (16.3%) of the cohort were prescribed clozapine. Data were available for 24 individuals. Of this clozapine subsample, the mean age at baseline was 23.11 (SD = 4.58); 82.14% (n = 23) were male; and 82.14% (n = 23) had a baseline diagnosis of schizophrenia. The mean time to first trial of clozapine was 6.7 years. The mean number of antipsychotics prescribed before clozapine trial was 4.85. After the initiation of clozapine, the mean number of hospital admissions reduced from 6.04 per year to 0.88 per year. IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 5 of the original cohort was considered to have a suboptimal response to trials of antipsychotic medication. The use of clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia is underutilized, and better understanding of the barriers to prescribing clozapine is necessary given the implications for patient's quality of life and hospital admission rates. Physical health data further emphasizes the importance of physical health monitoring in this vulnerable population.

Are We Really Impacting Duration of Untreated Psychosis and Does It Matter?: Longitudinal Perspectives on Early Intervention from the Irish Public Health Services.

Although early intervention in psychosis is clinically intuitive and theoretically feasible, the reality is that over recent decades the evidence base to support it has not advanced as much as might have been anticipated. Material benefits of early intervention in established psychosis have not been universally demonstrated and much uncertainty continues to surround the field of treatment in the prodromal phase. Undoubtedly methodological differences between studies are relevant and better understanding of different treatment models and the effectiveness of their constituent parts may yield the most benefit, particularly from a public health perspective.

Prodromal symptoms and remission following first episode psychosis.

INTRODUCTION: Describing the trajectory of prodromal symptoms has obvious appeal in supporting advances towards sub-clinical intervention. Identifying clinical phenomena associated with unfavourable illness outcomes could have greater significance in explaining some heterogeneity within and between psychotic disorders and advancing understanding of pre-psychotic typologies. Few studies have assessed the continuity, if any, between prodromal phases and illness outcome one year after treatment. METHODS: We assessed 375 people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) and 215 (57.4%) were seen approximately one year later. We performed factor analysis on prodromal symptom items obtained by interview with families and participants and identified a five-factor solution. We determined whether these factors predicted non-remission from psychosis in the presence of other factors that may predict outcome including premorbid adjustment, duration of prodrome and untreated psychosis (DUP), baseline symptoms and DSM-IV diagnoses. We used random forest classification to predict the most important variables and logistic regression to identify specific predictors. RESULTS: We identified five prodromal symptom factors comprising Negative Symptoms, General Psychopathology, Reality Distortion, Strange Ideas and Irritability. Prodromal symptoms did not predict a greater risk of non-remission with the exception of Irritability and this factor was also associated with earlier age at onset, being male and a diagnosis of substance-induced psychosis. Being male, DUP and baseline positive symptoms predicted non-remission at one year. CONCLUSION: Prodromal symptoms were not linked with outcome after a year of treatment which could be explained by greater heterogeneity in illness psychopathology which may be more pronounced in broad FEP diagnoses at different stages. It could also be explained by prodromal symptoms exerting greater influence earlier in the course illness.

First-episode psychosis and disengagement from treatment: a systematic review.

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.