Applying economic models to estimate local economic benefits of improved coverage of early intervention for psychosis

Effectiveness of the early intervention service for first-episode psychosis in Navarra (PEPsNa): Broadening the scope of outcome measures

BACKGROUND

This study compares the effectiveness of a new early intervention service for firstepisode psychosis (FEP) in patients under conventional treatment. Six primary and 10 secondary outcome measures are used to better characterize the comparative effectiveness between two FEP groups.

METHODS

This study plans to enroll 250 patients aged 15-55 years with FEP from all inpatient and outpatient mental health services and primary health care from January 2020 until December 2022. The control group will be composed of 130 FEP patients treated in mental health centers in the 2 years prior to the start of PEPsNa (Programa de Primeros Episodios de Psicosis de Navarra). The primary outcome measures are symptomatic remission, functional recovery, personal recovery, cognitive performance, functional capacity in real-world settings, and costs. The secondary outcome measures are duration of untreated psychosis, substance abuse rate, antipsychotic monotherapy, minimal effective dose of antipsychotic drugs, therapeutic alliance, drop-out rate, number of relapses, global mortality and suicidality, resource use, and general satisfaction in the program.

DISCUSSION

This study arises from the growing need to broaden the scope of outcome measures in FEP patients and to account for unmet needs of recovery for FEPs. It aims to contribute in the dissemination of the NAVIGATE model in Europe and to provide new evidence of the effectiveness of early intervention services for stakeholders of the National Health Service.

A public early intervention approach to first-episode psychosis: Treated incidence over 7 years in the Emilia-Romagna region

AIM

To estimate the treated incidence of individuals with first-episode psychosis (FEP) who contacted the Emilia-Romagna public mental healthcare system (Italy); to examine the variability of incidence and user characteristics across centres and years.

METHODS

We computed the raw treated incidence in 2013-2019, based on FEP users aged 18-35, seen within or outside the regional program for FEP. We modelled FEP incidence across 10 catchment areas and 7 years using Bayesian Poisson and Negative Binomial Generalized Linear Models of varying complexity. We explored associations between user characteristics, study centre and year comparing variables and socioclinical clusters of subjects.

RESULTS

Thousand three hundred and eighteen individuals were treated for FEP (raw incidence: 25.3 / 100.000 inhabitant year, IQR: 15.3). A Negative Binomial location-scale model with area, population density and year as predictors found that incidence and its variability changed across centres (Bologna: 36.55; 95% CrI: 30.39-43.86; Imola: 3.07; 95% CrI: 1.61-4.99) but did not follow linear temporal trends or density. Centers were associated with different user age, gender, migrant status, occupation, living conditions and cluster distribution. Year was associated negatively with HoNOS score (R = -0.09, p < .001), duration of untreated psychosis (R = -0.12, p < .001) and referral type.

CONCLUSIONS

The Emilia-Romagna region presents a relatively high but variable incidence of FEP across areas, but not in time. More granular information on social, ethnic and cultural factors may increase the level of explanation and prediction of FEP incidence and characteristics, shedding light on social and healthcare factors influencing FEP.

Public mental health: required actions to address implementation failure in the context of COVID-19

Mental disorders account for at least 18% of global disease burden, and the associated annual global costs are projected to be US$6 trillion by 2030. Evidence-based, cost-effective public mental health (PMH) interventions exist to prevent mental disorders from arising, prevent associated impacts of mental disorders (including through treatment), and promote mental wellbeing and resilience. However, only a small proportion of people with mental disorders receive minimally adequate treatment. Compared with treatment, there is even less coverage of interventions to prevent the associated impacts of mental disorders, prevent mental disorders from arising, or promote mental wellbeing and resilience. This implementation failure breaches the right to health, has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, and results in preventable suffering, broad impacts, and associated economic costs. In this Health Policy paper, we outline specific actions to improve the coverage of PMH interventions, including PMH needs assessments, collaborative advocacy and leadership, PMH practice to inform policy and implementation, training and improvement of population literacy, settings-based and integrated approaches, use of digital technology, maximising existing resources, focus on high-return interventions, human rights approaches, legislation, and implementation research. Increased interest in PMH in populations and governments since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic supports these actions. Improved implementation of PMH interventions can result in broad health, social, and economic impacts, even in the short-term, which support the achievement of a range of policy objectives, sustainable economic development, and recovery.