PURPOSE: To describe pathways to care, duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), and types of interventions provided to first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients by routine Italian mental health services over 5 years since the first service contact. METHODS: Naturalistic study conducted in Veneto, within the context of the Psychosis Incident Cohort Outcome Study (PICOS). A comprehensive set of measures was used, including schedules designed to collect information on referrals to psychiatric services and on psychological and pharmacological treatments at 1, 2, and 5 years since first service contact. RESULTS: Overall, 397 patients were assessed. Most engaged with services with the help of family members (47.4%) and through emergency routes (60.3%). Those referred by clinicians were more likely to access care in a non-emergency way. Mean DUP was 5.62 months (SD 11.8) and longer DUP was associated with poorer functioning at 2 and 5 years. Interventions provided over 5 years were mainly constituted by antipsychotic medications (95.4% at 1 year; 85.8% at 2 years; 80.6% at 5 years), whereas a lower percentage (69.1% at 1 year; 61.5% at 2 years; 44.9% at 5 years) also received some forms of psychological interventions, mainly consisting of unspecific support sessions. Other structured interventions, such as CBT or family interventions, were seldom provided at each time-point. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health services in Veneto seem effective in engaging FEP patients within a short time since illness onset. However, type of care provided does not meet quality standards recommended by treatment guidelines, especially regarding psychological interventions.

Pathways to care, DUP, and types of interventions over 5 years following psychosis onset: findings from a naturalistic study conducted in routine generalist mental health services

Miglietta, Elisabetta;Lasalvia, Antonio
;
Bonetto, Chiara;Comacchio, Carla;Cristofalo, Doriana;Tosato, Sarah;De Santi, Katia;Petterlini, Sara;Zanatta, Gioia;Ruggeri, Mirella
2020-01-01

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe pathways to care, duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), and types of interventions provided to first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients by routine Italian mental health services over 5 years since the first service contact. METHODS: Naturalistic study conducted in Veneto, within the context of the Psychosis Incident Cohort Outcome Study (PICOS). A comprehensive set of measures was used, including schedules designed to collect information on referrals to psychiatric services and on psychological and pharmacological treatments at 1, 2, and 5 years since first service contact. RESULTS: Overall, 397 patients were assessed. Most engaged with services with the help of family members (47.4%) and through emergency routes (60.3%). Those referred by clinicians were more likely to access care in a non-emergency way. Mean DUP was 5.62 months (SD 11.8) and longer DUP was associated with poorer functioning at 2 and 5 years. Interventions provided over 5 years were mainly constituted by antipsychotic medications (95.4% at 1 year; 85.8% at 2 years; 80.6% at 5 years), whereas a lower percentage (69.1% at 1 year; 61.5% at 2 years; 44.9% at 5 years) also received some forms of psychological interventions, mainly consisting of unspecific support sessions. Other structured interventions, such as CBT or family interventions, were seldom provided at each time-point. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health services in Veneto seem effective in engaging FEP patients within a short time since illness onset. However, type of care provided does not meet quality standards recommended by treatment guidelines, especially regarding psychological interventions.
Duration of untreated psychosis (DUP); First-episode psychosis (FEP); Pathways to care; Patterns of care; Psychological interventions
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11562/1000100
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact