Considerations for providing feedback to patients and families regarding clinical high-risk for psychosis status

Screening for psychotic experiences and psychotic disorders in general psychiatric settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The absence of systematic screening for psychosis within general psychiatric services contribute to substantial treatment delays and poor long-term outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate rates of psychotic experiences, clinical high-risk for psychosis syndrome (CHR-P), and psychotic disorders identified by screening treatment-seeking individuals to inform implementation recommendations for routine psychosis screening in general psychiatric settings.

Methods

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to identify empirical studies that contained information on the point prevalence of psychotic experiences, CHR-P, or psychotic disorders identified by screening inpatient and outpatient samples aged 12-64 receiving general psychiatric care. Psychotic experiences were identified by meeting threshold scores on validated self-reported questionnaires, and psychotic disorders and CHR-P by gold-standard structured interview assessments. A meta-analysis of each outcome was conducted using the Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimator method of estimating effect sizes in a random effects model.

Results

41 independent samples (k=36 outpatient) involving n=25,751 patients (58% female, mean age: 24.1 years) were included. Among a general psychiatric population, prevalence of psychotic experiences was 44.3% (95% CI: 35.8-52.8%; 28 samples, n=21,957); CHR-P was 26.4% (95% CI: 20.0-32.7%; 28 samples, n=14,395); and psychotic disorders was 6.6% (95% CI: 3.3-9.8%; 32 samples, n=20,371).

Conclusions

High rates of psychotic spectrum illness in general psychiatric settings underscore need for secondary prevention with psychosis screening. These base rates can be used to plan training and resources required to conduct assessments for early detection, as well as build capacity in interventions for CHR-P and early psychosis in non-specialty mental health settings.

Review of factors resulting in systemic biases in the screening, assessment, and treatment of individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis in the United States

Background

Since its inception, research in the clinical high-risk (CHR) phase of psychosis has included identifying and exploring the impact of relevant socio-demographic factors. Employing a narrative review approach and highlighting work from the United States, sociocultural and contextual factors potentially affecting the screening, assessment, and service utilization of youth at CHR were reviewed from the current literature.

Results

Existing literature suggests that contextual factors impact the predictive performance of widely used psychosis-risk screening tools and may introduce systemic bias and challenges to differential diagnosis in clinical assessment. Factors reviewed include racialized identity, discrimination, neighborhood context, trauma, immigration status, gender identity, sexual orientation, and age. Furthermore, racialized identity and traumatic experiences appear related to symptom severity and service utilization among this population.

Conclusions

Collectively, a growing body of research from the United States and beyond suggests that considering context in psychosis-risk assessment can provide a more accurate appraisal of the nature of risk for psychosis, render more accurate results improving the field's prediction of conversion to psychosis, and enhance our understanding of psychosis-risk trajectories. More work is needed in the U.S. and across the globe to uncover how structural racism and systemic biases impact screening, assessment, treatment, and clinical and functional outcomes for those at CHR.

Skills program for awareness, connectedness, and empowerment: A conceptual framework of a skills group for individuals with a psychosis-risk syndrome

Intervention strategies for those diagnosed with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia can be effective in reducing symptoms and improving quality of life. While strides have been made in developing prevention and intervention strategies earlier on in the disease progression, among those at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis, challenges with heterogeneity can limit symptom and diagnosis specific treatment. Here, we discuss a newly developed therapy skills group called the Skills Program for Awareness, Connectedness, and Empowerment (SPACE) that integrates different types of behavioral skills - standard and radically open dialectical behavioral therapy as well as cognitive behavioral therapy - for CHR youth between the ages of 13-18 years. With the diathesis-stress framework serving as a foundation, the intervention is divided into three stages. These stages target specific signs and symptoms contributing to the progression of CHR symptoms. Stage 1 targets stress (with the goal of developing awareness and reducing distress), stage 2 targets self-disturbances (with a goal of increasing self-connectedness), and stage 3 targets social connectedness (with a goal of improving social domains of functioning). The focus of this article is to introduce the theoretical framework underlying the pilot skills group and discuss ongoing progress.

Clinical Trial Registration

NCT05398120; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05398120.

Psychoeducation for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: A scoping review

Psychoeducation is recommended in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia and has been shown to improve satisfaction with mental health service and treatment adherence, reduce relapse and hospital readmission rates, and enhance functioning and quality of life. Youth at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) may also benefit from receiving psychoeducation as part of their treatment. The goal of this study was to conduct a scoping review to map out the existing literature on psychoeducation for CHR individuals, including content, utilization, and benefits, in order to identify areas for future research and clinical care. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection) to identify literature through 02/25/2022 that provided data or significant commentary about the provision of psychoeducation to CHR individuals. After screening titles and abstracts, four co-authors assessed full-text articles for eligibility. Thirty-three studies were included in the review. Psychoeducation is recommended in the treatment of CHR individuals, is a preferred treatment option among CHR individuals, and many CHR programs report offering psychoeducation. However, details about the psychoeducational content and method of delivery are notably absent from recommendations and reports on the provision of CHR psychoeducation in real-world settings. We identified two brief and structured CHR psychoeducation interventions and one longer-term psychoeducational multifamily group model for CHR that show feasibility and promise, though they have not yet undergone randomized trials to evaluate effectiveness of the psychoeducation. We also identified several comprehensive CHR interventions that included an explicit psychoeducation module, though the unique role of the psychoeducational component is unknown. Despite being recommended as a critical component of treatment for CHR individuals and preferred by CHR individuals, the ways in which psychoeducation are being delivered to CHR individuals in real-world practice is still largely ambiguous. Rigorous evaluations of psychoeducation treatment models are needed, as well as investment from clinical programs to facilitate the implementation and dissemination of standardized psychoeducation for CHR individuals.