Impact of rurality and substance use on young people at ultra high risk for psychosis

Prevalence Rates of Depression and Anxiety among Young Rural and Urban Australians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Globally, depression and anxiety are major public health concerns with onset during adolescence. While rural Australia experiences overall lower health outcomes, variation in mental health prevalence rates between rural and urban Australia is unclear. The aim of this paper was to estimate the pooled prevalence rates for depression and anxiety among young Australians aged between 10 and 24 years. Selected studies from a systematic literature search were assessed for risk of bias. Random effects model using DerSimonian and Laird method with Freeman-Tukey Double Arcsine Transformation was fitted. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Prevalence estimates were stratified by region and disorder. The overall pooled prevalence of depression and anxiety was 25.3% (95% CI, 19.9-31.0%). In subgroup analysis, anxiety prevalence was 29.9% (95% CI, 21.6-39.0%); depression: 21.3% (95% CI, 14.9-28.5%); and depression or anxiety: 27.2% (95% CI, 20.3-34.6%). Depression and anxiety prevalence were higher in urban 26.1% (95% CI, 17.3-35.9%) compared to rural areas 24.9% (95% CI, 17.5-33%), although the difference was not statistically significant. The heterogeneity was high with an I2 score of 95.8%. There is need for further research on healthcare access, mental health literacy and help-seeking attitude in Australia.

Equity in Mental Health Services for Youth at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: Considering Marginalized Identities and Stressors

Prevention and early intervention programs have been initiated worldwide to serve youth at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P), who are adolescents and young adults experiencing subclinical psychosis and functional impairment. The primary goals of these efforts are to prevent or mitigate the onset of clinical psychosis, while also treating comorbid issues. It is important to consider issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion in CHR-P work, especially as these programs continue to proliferate around the world. Further, there is a long history in psychiatry of misdiagnosing and mistreating psychosis in individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups. Although there have been significant developments in early intervention psychosis work, there is evidence that marginalized groups are underserved by current CHR-P screening and intervention efforts. These issues are compounded by the contexts of continued social marginalization and significant mental health disparities in general child/adolescent services. Within this narrative review and call to action, we use an intersectional and minority stress lens to review and discuss current issues related to equity in CHR-P services, offer evidence-based recommendations, and propose next steps. In particular, our intersectional and minority stress lenses incorporate perspectives for a range of marginalized and underserved identities related to race, ethnicity, and culture; faith; immigration status; geography/residence; gender identity; sexual orientation; socioeconomic status/class; and ability status.

Annual Research Review: Prevention of psychosis in adolescents - systematic review and meta-analysis of advances in detection, prognosis and intervention

BACKGROUND

The clinical high-risk state for psychosis (CHR-P) paradigm has facilitated the implementation of psychosis prevention into clinical practice; however, advancements in adolescent CHR-P populations are less established.

METHODS

We performed a PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review of the Web of Science database, from inception until 7 October 2019, to identify original studies conducted in CHR-P children and adolescents (mean age <18 years). Findings were systematically appraised around core themes: detection, prognosis and intervention. We performed meta-analyses (employing Q statistics and I ² test) regarding the proportion of CHR-P subgroups, the prevalence of baseline comorbid mental disorders, the risk of psychosis onset and the type of interventions received at baseline. Quality assessment and publication bias were also analysed.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven articles were included (n = 4,667 CHR-P individuals). Quality of studies ranged from 3.5 to 8 (median 5.5) on a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Detection: Individuals were aged 15.6 ± 1.2 years (51.5% males), mostly (83%) presenting with attenuated positive psychotic symptoms. CHR-P psychometric accuracy improved when caregivers served as additional informants. Comorbid mood (46.4%) and anxiety (31.4%) disorders were highly prevalent. Functioning and cognition were impaired. Neurobiological studies were inconclusive.

PROGNOSIS

Risk for psychosis was 10.4% (95%CI: 5.8%-18.1%) at 6 months, 20% (95%CI: 15%-26%) at 12 months, 23% (95%CI: 18%-29%) at 24 months and 23.3% (95%CI: 17.3%-30.7%) at ≥36 months.

INTERVENTIONS

There was not enough evidence to recommend one specific treatment (including cognitive behavioural therapy) over the others (including control conditions) to prevent the transition to psychosis in this population. Randomised controlled trials suggested that family interventions, cognitive remediation and fish oil supplementation may improve cognition, symptoms and functioning. At baseline, 30% of CHR-P adolescents were prescribed antipsychotics and 60% received psychotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to detect and formulate a group-level prognosis in adolescents at risk for psychosis. Future interventional research is required.

Geographic Disparities in Access to Specialty Care Programs for Early Psychosis in Washington State

Supported by the 10% set-aside funds in the Community Mental Health Block grant, distributed at the state level, coordinated specialty care (CSC) have been widely disseminated throughout the U.S. This study explores variations in the geographical accessibility of CSC programs by neighborhood level characteristics in Washington State. CSC locations were geocoded. Socioeconomic neighborhood deprivation (i.e., Area deprivation index) and rurality (i.e., Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes) were neighborhood level characteristics extracted from the 2018 American Community Survey. Geographic accessibility of CSC was assessed using a two-step floating catchment area technique and multilevel linear models were used to examine the association between specific neighborhood characteristics and geographic accessibility. The association between access and socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods varied differentially by neighborhood rurality (an interaction effect). Model estimates indicated that the least deprived, metropolitan neighborhoods had the best access (M = 0.38; CI: 0.34, 0.42) and rural neighborhoods in the second most deprived quartile had the worst access (M = 0.16; CI: 0.11, 0.21) to CSC. There was a clear decrease in accessibility for more rural neighborhoods, regardless of other neighborhood characteristics. In conclusions, findings provide important insight into how resource distribution contributes to geographic disparities in access to CSC. The use of spatial analytic techniques has the potential to identify specific neighborhoods and populations where there is a need to expand and increase availability of CSC to ensure access to rural and socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods.

Cannabis use in individuals at clinical high-risk for psychosis: a comprehensive review

PURPOSE

The objectives of this review were to understand the prevalence of cannabis use and how cannabis is associated with transition to psychosis, symptoms, cognition, trauma and family history in clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis individuals.

METHOD

A systematic literature review was conducted to find studies that examined cannabis use in CHR individuals, with no limitations on the geographical area, and included publications up to November 2018. Studies were screened for inclusion based on detailed criteria, and data were extracted on cannabis use and associated outcomes. A quantitative synthesis by meta-analysis was performed where appropriate, otherwise, a qualitative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, 36 studies met inclusion criteria with an average age of 20.1 years and 58.4% males. Prevalence of lifetime cannabis use was 48.7%, whereas current cannabis use was 25.8% and the prevalence of cannabis use disorder/abuse or dependence was 14.9% across the studies. All cannabis use results had statistically significant heterogeneity ranging from 75.7 to 92.8%. The most commonly reported association with cannabis use was transition to psychosis, although the pooled relative risk (RR) was not statistically significant (RR = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 0.89-1.37). For all other outcomes including symptoms, cognition, trauma, and family history, the evidence was limited, and therefore, the results were synthesized qualitatively.

CONCLUSION

Almost half of CHR individuals have ever used cannabis. However, cannabis use has not been thoroughly researched regarding frequency and dose of use, and how other factors, such as symptoms, are associated with cannabis in CHR individuals.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

The Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (2 May 2018), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of risk ratio (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. Where meta-analyses were possible, we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

Our review now includes 41 trials with a total of 4024 participants. We have identified nine comparisons within the included trials and present a summary of our main findings for seven of these below. We were unable to summarise many findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low- or very-low quality due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or inadequately reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals. 1. Integrated models of care versus standard care (36 months) No clear differences were found between treatment groups for loss to treatment (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.45; participants = 603; studies = 3; low-quality evidence), death (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.57; participants = 421; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), alcohol use (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56; participants = 143; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), substance use (drug) (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.25; participants = 85; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), global assessment of functioning (GAF) scores (MD 0.40, 95% CI -2.47 to 3.27; participants = 170; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), or general life satisfaction (QOLI) scores (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.38; participants = 373; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). 2. Non-integrated models of care versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at 12 months (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.99; participants = 134; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence). 3. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus standard care There was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.86; participants = 152; studies = 2; low-quality evidence), cannabis use at six months (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.15; participants = 47; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or mental state insight (IS) scores by three months (MD 0.52, 95% CI -0.78 to 1.82; participants = 105; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). 4. Contingency management versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at three months (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.11; participants = 255; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at six months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.06; participants = 176; studies = 1) or hospitalisations (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.93; participants = 176; studies = 1); both low-quality evidence. 5. Motivational interviewing (MI) versus standard care We found no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment at six months (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.64; participants = 62; studies = 1). A clear difference, favouring MI, was observed for abstaining from alcohol (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.75; participants = 28; studies = 1) but not other substances (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.42; participants = 89; studies = 1), and no differences were observed in mental state general severity (SCL-90-R) scores (MD -0.19, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.21; participants = 30; studies = 1). All very low-quality evidence. 6. Skills training versus standard care At 12 months, there were no clear differences between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 10.10; participants = 122; studies = 3) or death (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.42; participants = 121; studies = 1). Very low-quality, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 7. CBT + MI versus standard care At 12 months, there was no clear difference between treatment groups for numbers lost to treatment (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59; participants = 327; studies = 1; low-quality evidence), number of deaths (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.76; participants = 603; studies = 4; low-quality evidence), relapse (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.04; participants = 36; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence), or GAF scores (MD 1.24, 95% CI -1.86 to 4.34; participants = 445; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). There was also no clear difference in reduction of drug use by six months (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.60; participants = 119; studies = 1; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 41 RCTs but were unable to use much data for analyses. There is currently no high-quality evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over standard care for important outcomes such as remaining in treatment, reduction in substance use or improving mental or global state in people with serious mental illnesses and substance misuse. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high-quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Predictors of Transition to Psychosis in Individuals at Clinical High Risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Current research is examining predictors of the transition to psychosis in youth who are at clinical high risk based on attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS). Determining predictors of the development of psychosis is important for an improved understanding of mechanisms as well as the development of preventative strategies. The purpose is to review the most recent literature identifying predictors of the transition to psychosis in those who are already assessed as being at risk.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multidomain models, in particular, integrated models of symptoms, social functioning, and cognition variables, achieve better predictive performance than individual factors. There are many methodological issues; however, several solutions have now been described in the literature. For youth who already have APS, predicting who may go on to later develop psychosis is possible. Several studies are underway in large consortiums that may overcome some of the methodological concerns and develop improved means of prediction.