Duration of untreated psychosis: Impact of the definition of treatment onset on its predictive value over three years of treatment.
Fiche du document
- doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.02.017
- issn: 0022-3956
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.02.017
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/26950643
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/eissn/1879-1379
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_706A61AC72412
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , Copying allowed only for non-profit organizations , https://serval.unil.ch/disclaimer
Sujets proches
TherapyCiter ce document
P. Golay et al., « Duration of untreated psychosis: Impact of the definition of treatment onset on its predictive value over three years of treatment. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.02.017
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
While reduction of DUP (Duration of Untreated Psychosis) is a key goal in early intervention strategies, the predictive value of DUP on outcome has been questioned. We planned this study in order to explore the impact of three different definition of "treatment initiation" on the predictive value of DUP on outcome in an early psychosis sample. 221 early psychosis patients aged 18-35 were followed-up prospectively over 36 months. DUP was measured using three definitions for treatment onset: Initiation of antipsychotic medication (DUP1); engagement in a specialized programme (DUP2) and combination of engagement in a specialized programme and adherence to medication (DUP3). 10% of patients never reached criteria for DUP3 and therefore were never adequately treated over the 36-month period of care. While DUP1 and DUP2 had a limited predictive value on outcome, DUP3, based on a more restrictive definition for treatment onset, was a better predictor of positive and negative symptoms, as well as functional outcome at 12, 24 and 36 months. Globally, DUP3 explained 2 to 5 times more of the variance than DUP1 and DUP2, with effect sizes falling in the medium range according to Cohen. The limited predictive value of DUP on outcome in previous studies may be linked to problems of definitions that do not take adherence to treatment into account. While they need replication, our results suggest effort to reduce DUP should continue and aim both at early detection and development of engagement strategies.