Premium
Early intervention services in psychosis: from evidence to wide implementation
Author(s) -
Csillag Claudio,
Nordentoft Merete,
Mizuno Masafumi,
Jones Peter B.,
Killackey Eóin,
Taylor Matthew,
Chen Eric,
Kane John,
McDaid David
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
early intervention in psychiatry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.087
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1751-7893
pISSN - 1751-7885
DOI - 10.1111/eip.12279
Subject(s) - mental health , public relations , incentive , intervention (counseling) , evidence based practice , promotion (chess) , economic justice , political science , medicine , public economics , psychiatry , economics , alternative medicine , pathology , politics , law , microeconomics
Aim Early intervention ( EI ) in psychosis is a comprehensive and evidence‐based approach aimed at detection and treatment of psychotic symptoms in their early stages. This paper presents core features and noteworthy aspects of the evidence basis and limitations of EI , the importance of programme fidelity, challenges for its widespread dissemination and economic perspectives related to it. Methods This paper is a narrative review about the evidence supporting EI and the challenges to its widespread dissemination. Results In spite of evidence of a wide range of benefits, widespread dissemination has been slow, and even currently implemented programmes might be threatened. This reflects in part the shortcomings of mental health care in general, such as low priority for funding, stigma and structural problems. Successful examples of advocacy, mobilization and destigmatization campaigns have overcome these difficulties. Conclusions Funding for mental health in general and for EI services appears low relative to need. One key argument for better funding for EI can be found in its favourable cost‐effectiveness, but not all stakeholders beyond mental health administrators are aware of this. Positive impacts of EI programmes on excess unemployment and tax forgone suggest that social affairs and labour ministries – and not only health ministries – could be more involved in governance of mental health issues; ministries of justice and education are other sector stakeholders than can benefit. Wider dissemination of EI services will probably benefit from better integration of potential funders, promotion of joint targets and shared financial or budgetary incentives.