A commentary on article in Psychological Medicine

Monday, 15 February 2010

Bosanac et al conclud in "Early intervention in psychotic disorders: faith before facts?" that there is a lack of evidence that early interventions do much for those who have illnesses that are, from the outset, likely to have a poor longitudinal trajectory.

 

In "Early intervention in psychosis: keping faith with evidence-based health care." McGorry et al says that developmental sensitivity and EI are extremely difficult features to embed in a ‘ one size fits all ' adult psychiatry. Much more substantial worldwide investment is now justified and is indeed being undertaken in many jurisdictions.  This ultimately has the potential to lead to truly stigma-free mental health care for a broader range of young people with emerging mental disorders.

It would be surprising in the fields of cancer or cardiovascular medicine to find the professional leadership canvassing arguments that would justify delaying treatment for potentially lifethreatening conditions. Critics should always be asked to nominate how much delay they personally find acceptable after psychotic symptoms, distress and functional impairment have emerged and been sustained in a young person. It is a matter of common sense that seriously ill people should have the pathway to care eased, not blocked. Early psychosis programmes create such pathways and safeguard tenure in care.

• P. McGorry, J. O. Johanessen, S. Lewis, M. Birchwood, A. Malla, M. Nordentoft, J. Addington and A. Yung (2010). Early intervention in psychosis: keeping faith with evidence-based health care. Psychological Medicine, 40 , pp 399-404
  doi:10.1017/S0033291709991346

• P. Bosanac, G. C. Patton and D. J. Castle (2010). Early intervention in psychotic disorders: faith before facts?. Psychological Medicine, 40 , pp 353-358 doi:10.1017/S0033291709990341

• The Journal Psychological Medicine
• Read about the TIPS study and Regional Centre for Clinical Research in psychosis.