Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-7lvjp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-09T14:46:30.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Early intervention in psychosis services: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of barriers and facilitators to seeking access

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2023

Jacqui Tiller
Affiliation:
1School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Tess Maguire
Affiliation:
1School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK 2Psychology Department, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
Katherine Newman-Taylor*
Affiliation:
1School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK 2Psychology Department, Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
*
Corresponding author: Katherine Newman-Taylor; Email: knt@soton.ac.uk

Abstract

Background

The duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) continues to be a global priority. Early intervention services were established to reduce treatment delays but have had limited impact. This systematic review examines barriers and facilitators to seeking access to these services, to identify targets for service level change.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of relevant databases (PsychINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsychARTICLES) using pre-defined search terms for psychosis, early intervention, and barriers and facilitators. Given the majority of qualitative studies, a thematic synthesis rather than meta-analysis was indicated.

Results

The search yielded 10 studies. Mental health stigma and discrimination predict DUP, compounded by structural barriers which limit the impact of early intervention services on timely access to recommended treatments. Synthesis of the qualitative studies generated three themes: knowledge, relationships, and stigma. Lack of knowledge, absence of supportive relationships (social and professional), and self-stigma constitute significant barriers to seeking access to early intervention services.

Conclusions

This is the first review of the barriers and facilitators to seeking access to early intervention services. The findings highlight public health and secondary care service targets to expedite access to recommended treatments and thereby reduce the DUP.

Type
Review/Meta-analysis
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association

Introduction

Duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) describes the period between initial psychotic symptoms and engagement in recommended treatments, and typically lasts 1–2 years [Reference McGlashan1, Reference Barnes, Hutton, Chapman, Mutsatsa, Puri and Joyce2]. Delayed access to treatment predicts poorer clinical and social outcomes up to 8 years later [Reference Crumlish, Whitty, Clarke, Browne, Kamali and Gervin3Reference Sullivan, Carroll, Peters, Amos, Jones and Marshall6]. This comes at considerable personal and healthcare costs [Reference Boonstra, Klaassen, Sytema, Marshall, De Haan and Wunderink7Reference Valmaggia, McCrone, Knapp, Woolley, Broome and Tabraham9], leading the World Health Organization [10] to identify DUP as an international healthcare target.

Specialist early intervention services have been established in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, and more recently in North America, Asia, Scandinavia, and other European countries, with the aim of identifying and treating early symptoms of psychosis over the initial critical period [Reference McGorry and Killackey11Reference Maric, Petrovic, Raballo, Rojnic‐Kuzman, Klosterkötter and Riecher‐Rössler13]. These services have been well received by young people with psychosis [Reference Lester, Marshall, Jones, Fowler, Amos and Khan14], with some evidence of improved outcomes [Reference Larsen, Melle, Auestad, Haahr, Joa and Johannessen15]. Disappointingly, however, the expectation that this step change in service delivery would lead to overall reductions in DUP is not (yet) supported by the literature [Reference Singh16], leading to calls to identify and target barriers and facilitators to accessing these services [Reference Birchwood, Connor, Lester, Patterson, Freemantle and Marshall17].

A recent systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of early intervention services highlighted systemic (e.g., funding and organizational structures), service (e.g., coherence of provision), and staff (e.g., knowledge and attitudes) factors [Reference O’Connell, O’Connor, McGrath, Vagge, Mockler and Jennings18]. A linked but distinct question concerns the factors affecting the likelihood that people will seek access to early intervention services. To our knowledge, this is the first review of barriers and facilitators to seeking access to early intervention for psychosis services.Footnote 1

Methods

Broad methodological alignment with O’Connell et al. [Reference O’Connell, O’Connor, McGrath, Vagge, Mockler and Jennings18] allows comparison across these two complementary reviews.

Pre-registration and search procedure

The review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022377155) and follows the preferred reporting guidelines for systematic reviews (PRISMA) [Reference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman and Group21]. We searched four electronic databases on 18.09.23 (PsychINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsychARTICLES) using free text and subject headings (where applicable) to improve search accuracy (see Table 1). Additionally, we searched ProQuest, Ethos, and British Library databases for gray literature to ensure a comprehensive search and reduce the risk of publication bias [Reference Boland, Dickson and Cherry22].

Table 1. Free text and subject headings

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Table 2 outlines study eligibility criteria, following Butler et al. [Reference Butler, Hall and Copnell23]. The search was not limited by publication date or status, to ensure a balanced summary of the evidence and reduce the impact of publication bias [Reference Paez24].

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The perspectives of carers, family members, and staff are also important in understanding access to services. However, these may diverge in important ways from the views of service users themselves, and so we focus on people with psychosis in the current review.

Study selection, data extraction, and analysis plan

We used Rayyan reference management software [Reference Ouzzani, Hammady, Fedorowicz and Elmagarmid25] to collate search results. The search yielded 582 articles, 421 after duplicates were removed. An independent reviewer second rated 10% of abstracts (n = 38) with good agreement (84.2%)Footnote 2 [Reference Fleiss, Levin and Paik26]. Full-text screening and hand searching of selected papers resulted in the identification of 10 papers which described three quantitative [Reference Birchwood, Connor, Lester, Patterson, Freemantle and Marshall17, Reference Archie, Akhtar-Danesh, Norman, Malla, Roy and Zipursky27, Reference Kular, Perry, Brown, Gajwani, Jasini and Islam28] and seven qualitative studies [Reference Bay, Bjørnestad, Johannessen, Larsen and Joa29Reference Lee, Marandola, Malla and Iyer35] (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram for paper selection.

With just three quantitative studies measuring differing primary outcomes, a narrative summary of the characteristics and key results was indicated rather than a meta-analysis. In line with Cochrane recommendations for synthesizing qualitative research, we undertook a thematic synthesis of the qualitative studies [Reference Booth, Noyes, Flemming, Gerhardus, Wahlster and Van Der Wilt36Reference Noyes, Booth, Cargo, Flemming, Harden, Harris, Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch38]. This approach is positioned between integrative and interpretative approaches and includes: (1) line by line coding of individual study results (for which we used NVIVO, [Reference NVivo39]), (2) generating descriptive themes, and then (3) generating analytical themes which interpret qualitative data across primary studiesFootnote 3 [Reference Thomas and Harden40].

Quality assessment and risk of bias

The Study Quality Assessment Tool (SQAT) [41] for observational studies, and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) [Reference Long, French and Brooks42] checklist for qualitative studies include 14 and 10 items respectively to assess methodological, analysis, and interpretation bias. In line with previous reviews, we totaled the number of “Yes” responses [cf. Reference Al-Dirini, Thewlis and Paul43]. Quantitative studies scored 7/10 relevant domains (see Table 3) and qualitative studies scored at least 7/10 (see Table 4). The key limitation of the quantitative studies was the reliance on cross-sectional data which precludes causal inferences. Though strong in most domains, the majority of qualitative studies failed to address researcher reflexivity and the impact of researcher/participant interactions, which are key to rigorous qualitative designs [Reference Teh and Lek44, Reference Dodgson45].

Table 3. Quality assessment – quantitative studies

Abbreviations: CD, cannot determine; N, no; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; Y, yes.

Table 4. Quality assessment – qualitative studies

Abbreviations: CT, cannot tell; N, no; Y, yes.

Quality assessments were completed by two raters independently with excellent agreement (100% SQAT; 95.71% CASP). Initial discrepancies with the CASP were resolved through discussion with the supervisory team. The quality assessment was not used to exclude studies (following Noyes et al. [Reference Noyes, Booth, Flemming, Garside, Harden and Lewin46] who note that domains are not equally weighted and so cut-off scores are arbitrary).

Researcher reflexivity

Reflexivity is a key element of qualitative research and requires researchers to consider their own role in the study and how this may influence findings [Reference Dodgson45]. This study was completed as part of the first author’s doctoral research. The second and third authors are experienced clinicians and researchers in the field. All three are healthcare professionals with experience in collecting data in early intervention services. We reflected on our roles, experiences, and assumptions during the thematic synthesis process to reduce the risk of bias [Reference McCabe and Holmes47].

ResultsFootnote 4

Study characteristics

All three quantitative studies and six of the seven qualitative studies were published, with one unpublished qualitative thesis. All were conducted in the northern hemisphere, though one explored experiences of international students studying abroad and receiving support for first-episode psychosis [Reference Lee, Marandola, Malla and Iyer35]. The quantitative studies recruited 78–200 majority male participants to observational cohort designs. The qualitative studies recruited 5–24 participants, with a broadly even male: female reported gender mix (though Cowan et al. [Reference Cowan, Pope, MacDonald, Malla, Ferrari and Iyer30] recruited more men). The majority utilized semi-structured interviews (n = 5) and thematic analyses (n = 4).

Key findings

The three quantitative studies examined care pathways to early intervention services to determine barriers to access, the role of stigma specifically, and potential differences with ethnicity (see Tables 5 and 6). Mental health stigma was identified a key barrier to seeking access to services and predicted DUP [Reference Kular, Perry, Brown, Gajwani, Jasini and Islam28]. Structural barriers within broader mental health services then delayed access to early intervention teams, thereby limiting the impact of these services on reducing DUP [Reference Birchwood, Connor, Lester, Patterson, Freemantle and Marshall17]. Perhaps unexpectedly, there were no differences in DUP or who initiated help-seeking (the person themselves, family/friends, or police) between ethnic groups, though Asian and other minoritized ethnic groups were more likely than White (×4) and Black (×3) participants to access early intervention via emergency services [Reference Archie, Akhtar-Danesh, Norman, Malla, Roy and Zipursky27].

Table 5. Study characteristics

a Five participants were excluded from analyses due to insufficient information to calculate DUP.

b N denotes a subset of the 132 participants in a wider study; demographic details describe the full sample.

Table 6. Key findings of the original studies

Thematic analysis of the qualitative data [Reference Booth, Noyes, Flemming, Gerhardus, Wahlster and Van Der Wilt36Reference Noyes, Booth, Cargo, Flemming, Harden, Harris, Higgins, Thomas, Chandler, Cumpston, Li, Page and Welch38] yielded three descriptive themes associated with barriers and facilitators to accessing early intervention for psychosis services: knowledge, stigma, and relationships (see Table 6 and Supplementary Material).

Knowledge describes individuals’ experiences in which information (or absence of information) known to the person and their support system (including families and mental health professionals) had a critical impact on whether and when they were able to access early intervention services. All studies identified limited knowledge – whether regarding psychosis symptomology, possible trajectories, and treatment options – as a significant barrier to help-seeking. For example, misattribution of symptoms to depression, drug use, or normal experiences of adolescence [Reference Jansen, Wøldike, Haahr and Simonsen33], believing that symptoms did not warrant treatment [Reference Bay, Bjørnestad, Johannessen, Larsen and Joa29, Reference Harris31, Reference Jansen, Wøldike, Haahr and Simonsen33], and being unaware of services available [Reference Bay, Bjørnestad, Johannessen, Larsen and Joa29, Reference Islam, Rabiee and Singh32], all delayed help-seeking and therefore access to recommended treatments. When people did seek help, this lack of knowledge could be compounded by that of primary care clinicians (e.g., General Practitioners in the UK) who also misattributed symptoms to anxiety or depression [Reference Bay, Bjørnestad, Johannessen, Larsen and Joa29, Reference Islam, Rabiee and Singh32], and other relevant professionals (e.g., immigration officials for international students) [Reference Lee, Marandola, Malla and Iyer35].

By contrast, four studies highlighted the impact of accurate information about psychosis and mental health services, for example from ongoing public health campaigns, on facilitating access [Reference Bay, Bjørnestad, Johannessen, Larsen and Joa29Reference Harris31, Reference Jansen, Wøldike, Haahr and Simonsen33], and that actively seeking additional information helped people develop an understanding of their experiences which in turn prompted help-seeking [Reference Harris31, Reference Jansen, Wøldike, Haahr and Simonsen33].

Stigma of mental health problems was identified in all qualitative studies as a key barrier to seeking access to early intervention services. Participants’ stigmatized beliefs about mental illness, and fears about others’ responses, in line with dominant societal discourses, affected the likelihood of disclosure and help-seeking [Reference Bay, Bjørnestad, Johannessen, Larsen and Joa29Reference Harris31, Reference Jansen, Wøldike, Haahr and Simonsen33Reference Lee, Marandola, Malla and Iyer35]. Two studies found that specific fears about being returned to hospital stopped people seeking help [Reference Harris31, Reference Jansen, Pedersen, Hastrup, Haahr and Simonsen34]. Socio-cultural factors affected stigma and therefore help-seeking and access to services. For example, where dominant narratives were highly stigmatizing of mental illness (and psychosis specifically) people were less likely to seek help from early intervention services [e.g., Reference Harris31, Reference Islam, Rabiee and Singh32].

The third descriptive theme highlights the impact of quality of relationships on likelihood of accessing early intervention services. Consistent emotional and practical support to disclose and manage psychotic experiences day-to-day increased access to services across six studies [Reference Cowan, Pope, MacDonald, Malla, Ferrari and Iyer30Reference Lee, Marandola, Malla and Iyer35], and a lack of supportive familial relationships and friendships was identified as a barrier [Reference Harris31, Reference Lee, Marandola, Malla and Iyer35]. Similarly, collaborative relationships with interpersonally effective professionals that support autonomy and shared decision-making, and flexible service systems (e.g., regarding the pace of engagement), facilitated help-seeking and maintenance of early engagement with services [Reference Cowan, Pope, MacDonald, Malla, Ferrari and Iyer30Reference Islam, Rabiee and Singh32; Reference Jansen, Pedersen, Hastrup, Haahr and Simonsen34]. Given the typical age of onset for psychosis, parental relationships were both a key facilitator and barrier [Reference Jansen, Wøldike, Haahr and Simonsen33, Reference Jansen, Pedersen, Hastrup, Haahr and Simonsen34].

The iterative process of thematic analysis, and discussion within the research team, highlighted links between the three themes - how knowledge, stigma, and relationships often intersect to facilitate or create barriers to accessing early intervention services. Interpreting the qualitative data across the primary studies yielded an overarching analytic theme of intersectional knowledge and beliefs about self and others, which represents the three overlapping themes and highlights the inherently interpersonal nature of stigma and relationships (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Intersectional knowledge and beliefs about self and others.

Knowledge and likelihood of accessing further information are affected by stigmatized beliefs about psychosis, mental health care, and oneself as a person who may have psychosis and need to access services. Generalized and self-stigma beliefs are by definition dependent on dominant socio-cultural discourses (e.g., psychosis as shameful) as well as personal and professional relationships. These generalized and specific social relationships in turn influence the knowledge we access and privilege when making healthcare decisions. The intersectionality of knowledge, stigma, and relationship beliefs about self and others suggests that public health and healthcare initiatives that target these in combination are likely to be more effective than strategies that focus on any one area in isolation.

Discussion

This is the first systematic review of the barriers and facilitators to accessing early intervention for psychosis services. A comprehensive search of the published and unpublished literature (with no date limits) yielded 10 papers, the majority of which were qualitative.

A recent review by O’Connell et al. [Reference O’Connell, O’Connor, McGrath, Vagge, Mockler and Jennings18] highlights factors likely to improve implementation of early intervention services. Our review complements this by identifying factors which influence whether people seek access to these services. Mental health stigma is a key barrier and predicts DUP. Structural service barriers then further delay access to specialist services, despite the introduction of access and waiting times standards [Reference Kreutzberg and Jacobs48]. A synthesis of the qualitative studies generated three themes which both hinder and facilitate access to services: knowledge, stigma, and relationships, and an overarching analytic theme of intersectional knowledge and beliefs about self and others.

These findings align with and extend the wider literature which suggests that limited knowledge about mental health delays access to services for people with psychosis [Reference Anderson, Fuhrer and Malla49, Reference Lal, Dell’Elce, Tucci, Fuhrer, Tamblyn and Malla50], and that mental health literacy alongside supportive social and professional relationships increases help-seeking, which may in turn reduce DUP and improve outcomes [Reference Upthegrove, Atulomah, Brunet and Chawla51]. Like McGonagle et al. [Reference McGonagle, Bucci, Varese, Raphael and Berry52], we found that stigma plays a key role in whether people disclose early psychosis and seek access to services, and that this is affected by dominant socio-cultural expectations [Reference Chatmon53]. Our review suggests that public health and service level initiatives should target these factors in integrated approaches that acknowledge the links between knowledge, stigma, and relationships.

Public health, service, and research implications

Mental health literacy campaigns (targeting knowledge) delivered in cultural context (to address culturally shaped stigma) and targeting local communities as a whole (to influence social and professional relationships) may be particularly effective. For example, healthcare in-reach to schools might strengthen the impact of accurate information about psychosis and treatment options by drawing on young people’s often strong and collective sense of social justice to challenge the shame that drives stigmatizing beliefs about psychosis [cf. Reference Svensson and Hansson54], and engaging well-regarded people in the local community to speak about their experiences of psychosis and accessing services – parent, child, and clinician triads might be particularly compelling.

Targeted training on the early signs of psychosis, how to access information and services, and how to be interpersonally effective in these interactions, should be delivered to professional groups who may come into contact with young people experiencing early signs of psychosis. Given the barriers identified in the current study, this should include primary care clinicians, emergency services, and education/immigration officials working with international students.

Secondary care services are likely to be more effective when clinicians are able to prioritize the development of supportive and trusting relationships with young people, shared decision-making, and flexible service delivery. These are of course built into service models for early intervention services, but are at risk when caseloads increase beyond recommended levels. The growing inclusion of peer support workers and befriending schemes in these teams is particularly welcome given the likely impact on knowledge, stigma, and relationships [Reference Repper, Aldridge, Gilfoyle, Gillard, Perkins and Rennison55Reference Hansen, Bayford, Wood, Proctor, Jansen and Newman‐Taylor57]. Routine clinical practice within these services should be extended to include culturally sensitive exploration of self-stigmatizing beliefs, and modeling of alternative ways of understanding and responding to psychosis, as a means of securing tentative engagement with young people.

In terms of research, we now need longitudinal quantitative and qualitative studies of young people’s decision-making and behaviors from the first signs of at risk mental states, in order to examine the role of candidate individual, interpersonal and service-related factors that affect likelihood of seeking access to specialist services, and how these change and can be targeted over time.

Conclusion

This review identifies key barriers and facilitators to seeking access to early intervention for psychosis services, and complements a recent review of the barriers and facilitators to implementation of these services [Reference O’Connell, O’Connor, McGrath, Vagge, Mockler and Jennings18]. Together, these reviews highlight public health, systemic, service and staff factors that may be targeted to facilitate access to early intervention services, with the aim of reducing DUP and improving outcomes for people with psychosis.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.2465.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interest

The authors declare none.

Footnotes

1 Friskney et al. [Reference Friskney, Branney, Iqbal, Edwards and Wem19] examine barriers and facilitators to access for people from South Asian heritage specifically, and Loughlin et al. [Reference Loughlin, Bucci, Brooks and Berry20] review ongoing engagement once people have accessed early intervention services.

2 The second rater reviewed 10% of the initial 375 articles identified. Further studies were identified when the search was checked and updated following a helpful comment from a reviewer of this paper.

3 Thomas and Harden [Reference Thomas and Harden40] report considerable variation in the reporting of qualitative syntheses in systematic reviews of qualitative studies, particularly in the extent of data and results presented. We follow these authors’ recommendation that all text recorded in the primary study “Results” be identified as data for potential coding.

4 Full coding manual is available on reasonable request.

References

McGlashan, TH. Duration of untreated psychosis in first-episode schizophrenia: marker or determinant of course? Biol Psychiatry 1999;46(7):899907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, TR, Hutton, SB, Chapman, MJ, Mutsatsa, S, Puri, BK, Joyce, EM. West London first-episode study of schizophrenia: clinical correlates of duration of untreated psychosis. Br J Psychiatry 2000;177(3):207–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crumlish, N, Whitty, P, Clarke, M, Browne, S, Kamali, M, Gervin, M et al., Beyond the critical period: longitudinal study of 8-year outcome in first-episode non-affective psychosis. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;194(1):1824.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, M, Lewis, S, Lockwood, A, Drake, R, Jones, P, Croudace, T. Association between duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in cohorts of first-episode patients: a systematic review. Arch Gen Psychiatry 20051;62(9):975–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, DO, Gu, H, Boteva, K, Lieberman, JA. Relationship between duration of untreated psychosis and outcome in first-episode schizophrenia: a critical review and meta-analysis. Am J Psychiatr 2005;162(10):1785–804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, SA, Carroll, R, Peters, TJ, Amos, T, Jones, PB, Marshall, M et al. Duration of untreated psychosis and clinical outcomes of first episode psychosis: an observational and an instrumental variables analysis. Early Interv Psychiatry 2019;13(4):841–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonstra, N, Klaassen, R, Sytema, S, Marshall, M, De Haan, L, Wunderink, L et al. Duration of untreated psychosis and negative symptoms—a Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Schizophr Res. 2012;142(1–3):12–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salomon, JA, Vos, T, Hogan, DR, Gagnon, M, Naghavi, M, Mokdad, A, et al. Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the global burden of disease study 2010. Lancet 2012;380(9859):2129–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valmaggia, LR, McCrone, P, Knapp, M, Woolley, JB, Broome, MR, Tabraham, P et al. Economic impact of early intervention in people at high risk of psychosis. Psychol Med. 2009;39(10):1617–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. Mental and neurological disorders. Fact sheet: The world health report 2001. Geneva, Switzerland: NMH Communications; 2001.Google Scholar
McGorry, PD, Killackey, EJ. Early intervention in psychosis: a new evidence based paradigm. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2002;11(4):237–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGorry, PD, Killackey, E, Yung, A. Early intervention in psychosis: concepts, evidence and future directions. World Psychiatry 2008;7(3):148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maric, NP, Petrovic, SA, Raballo, A, Rojnic‐Kuzman, M, Klosterkötter, J, Riecher‐Rössler, A. Survey of the European psychiatric association on the European status and perspectives in early detection and intervention in at‐risk mental state and first‐episode psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry 2018;13(4):853–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lester, H, Marshall, M, Jones, P, Fowler, D, Amos, T, Khan, N et al. Views of young people in early intervention services for first-episode psychosis in England. Psychiatr Serv. 2011;62(8):882–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, TK, Melle, I, Auestad, B, Haahr, U, Joa, I, Johannessen, JO et al. Early detection of psychosis: positive effects on 5-year outcome. Psychol Med. 2011;41(7):1461–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, SP. Early intervention in psychosis. Br J Psychiatry 2010;196(5):343–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birchwood, M, Connor, C, Lester, H, Patterson, P, Freemantle, N, Marshall, M et al. Reducing duration of untreated psychosis: care pathways to early intervention in psychosis services. Br J Psychiatry 2013;203(1):5864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Connell, N, O’Connor, K, McGrath, D, Vagge, L, Mockler, D, Jennings, R, et al. Early intervention in psychosis services: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the barriers and facilitators to implementation. Eur Psychiatry 2022;65(1):e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friskney, R, Branney, P, Iqbal, S, Edwards, L, Wem, L. Cultural inequalities in access to early intervention for psychosis services in the United Kingdom. Unpublished doctoral thesis.Google Scholar
Loughlin, M, Bucci, S, Brooks, J, Berry, K. Service users’ and carers’ experiences of engaging with early intervention services: a meta‐synthesis review. Early Interv Psychiatry 2020;14(1):2636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG, Group, Prisma. Reprint—Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther. 2009;89(9):873–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boland, A, Dickson, R, Cherry, G. Doing a systematic review: a student’s guide. In: Doing a systematic review. 2017;1304. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Butler, A, Hall, H, Copnell, B. A guide to writing a qualitative systematic review protocol to enhance evidence‐based practice in nursing and health care. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2016;13(3):241–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paez, A. Gray literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10(3):233–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ouzzani, M, Hammady, H, Fedorowicz, Z, Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fleiss, JL, Levin, B, Paik, MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. London: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.Google Scholar
Archie, S, Akhtar-Danesh, N, Norman, R, Malla, A, Roy, P, Zipursky, RB. Ethnic diversity and pathways to care for a first episode of psychosis in Ontario. Schizophr Bull. 2010;36(4):688701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kular, A, Perry, BI, Brown, L, Gajwani, R, Jasini, R, Islam, Z et al. Stigma and access to care in first‐episode psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry 2019 ;13(5):1208–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bay, N, Bjørnestad, J, Johannessen, JO, Larsen, TK, Joa, I. Obstacles to care in first‐episode psychosis patients with a long duration of untreated psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry 2016;10(1):71–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowan, T, Pope, MA, MacDonald, K, Malla, A, Ferrari, M, Iyer, SN. Engagement in specialized early intervention services for psychosis as an interplay between personal agency and critical structures: a qualitative study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;108:103583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, S. Exploring young people’s constructions of a first episode of psychosis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Islam, Z, Rabiee, F, Singh, SP. Black and minority ethnic groups’ perception and experience of early intervention in psychosis services in the United Kingdom. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2015;46(5):737–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jansen, JE, Wøldike, PM, Haahr, UH, Simonsen, E. Service user perspectives on the experience of illness and pathway to care in first-episode psychosis: a qualitative study within the TOP project. Psychiatry Q. 2015;86:8394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, JE, Pedersen, MB, Hastrup, LH, Haahr, UH, Simonsen, E. Important first encounter: service user experience of pathways to care and early detection in first‐episode psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry 2018;12(2):169–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C, Marandola, G, Malla, A, Iyer, S. Challenges in and recommendations for working with international students with first-episode psychosis: a descriptive case series. Int J Migration Health Soc Care 2015;12(3):185–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, A, Noyes, J, Flemming, K, Gerhardus, A, Wahlster, P, Van Der Wilt, GJ et al. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions. Bremen, DE: Integrate-HTA. 2016.Google Scholar
Flemming, K, Noyes, J. Qualitative evidence synthesis: where are we at?. Int J Qual Methods 2021;20:1609406921993276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noyes, J, Booth, A, Cargo, M, Flemming, K, Harden, A, Harris, J et al. Chapter 21: Qualitative evidence. In: Higgins, JPT, Thomas, J, Chandler, J, Cumpston, M, Li, T, Page, MJ, Welch, VA (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022.Google Scholar
NVivo, Q. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 10. Burlington, MA: QSR international Pty ltd; 2020.Google Scholar
Thomas, J, Harden, A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies, http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/cohort; 2014 [accessed 15 June 2023].Google Scholar
Long, HA, French, DP, Brooks, JM. Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Res Methods Med Health Sci. 2020;1(1):3142.Google Scholar
Al-Dirini, RM, Thewlis, D, Paul, G. A comprehensive literature review of the pelvis and the lower extremity FE human models under quasi-static conditions. Work 2012;41(Supplement 1):4218–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teh, YY, Lek, E. Culture and reflexivity: systemic journeys with a British Chinese family. J Fam Ther. 2018;40(4):520–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodgson, JE. Reflexivity in qualitative research. J Hum Lact. 2019;35(2):220–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noyes, J, Booth, A, Flemming, K, Garside, R, Harden, A, Lewin, S et al. Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods Group guidance series—Paper 3: methods for assessing methodological limitations, data extraction and synthesis, and confidence in synthesized qualitative findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:4958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCabe, JL, Holmes, D. Reflexivity, critical qualitative research and emancipation: a Foucauldian perspective. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(7):1518–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreutzberg, A, Jacobs, R. Improving access to services for psychotic patients: does implementing a waiting time target make a difference. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21:703–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, KK, Fuhrer, R, Malla, AK. “There are too many steps before you get to where you need to be”: help-seeking by patients with first-episode psychosis. J Ment Health 2013;22(4):384–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lal, S, Dell’Elce, J, Tucci, N, Fuhrer, R, Tamblyn, R, Malla, A. Preferences of young adults with first-episode psychosis for receiving specialized mental health services using technology: a survey study. JMIR Mental Health 2015;2(2):e4400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Upthegrove, R, Atulomah, O, Brunet, K, Chawla, R. Cultural and social influences of negative illness appraisals in first‐episode psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry 2013;7 (4):399406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGonagle, G, Bucci, S, Varese, F, Raphael, J, Berry, K. Is adult attachment associated with engagement with services? a systematic literature review. J Ment Health 2021;30(5):607–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatmon, BN. Males and mental health stigma. Am J Mens Health 2020;14(4):1557988320949322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svensson, B, Hansson, L. How mental health literacy and experience of mental illness relate to stigmatizing attitudes and social distance towards people with depression or psychosis: a cross-sectional study. Nord J Psychiatry 2016;70(4):309–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Repper, J, Aldridge, B, Gilfoyle, S, Gillard, S, Perkins, R, Rennison, J. Peer support workers: Theory and practice. London: Centre for Mental Health; 2013.Google Scholar
Proctor, K, Wood, R, Newman-Taylor, K. Welcoming peer workers in NHS settings: facilitating readiness with an early intervention in psychosis team. Ment Health Soc Incl. 2019;23(1):30–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, L, Bayford, E, Wood, R, Proctor, K, Jansen, R, Newman‐Taylor, K. Lessons from an aborted controlled trial on the impact of befriending in an early intervention in psychosis population. Early Interv Psychiatry 2022;16(4):453–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Free text and subject headings

Figure 1

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Figure 2

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram for paper selection.

Figure 3

Table 3. Quality assessment – quantitative studies

Figure 4

Table 4. Quality assessment – qualitative studies

Figure 5

Table 5. Study characteristics

Figure 6

Table 6. Key findings of the original studies

Figure 7

Figure 2. Intersectional knowledge and beliefs about self and others.

Supplementary material: File

Tiller et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 30.7 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.