Screening for psychotic experiences and psychotic disorders in general psychiatric settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Clauss, J.; Foo, C. Y. S.; Leonard, C. J.; Dokholyan, K. N.; Cather, C.; Holt, D. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe absence of systematic screening for psychosis within general psychiatric services contribute to substantial treatment delays and poor long-term outcomes. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate rates of psychotic experiences, clinical high-risk for psychosis syndrome (CHR-P), and psychotic disorders identified by screening treatment-seeking individuals to inform implementation recommendations for routine psychosis screening in general psychiatric settings. MethodsPubMed and Web of Science databases were searched to identify empirical studies that contained information on the point prevalence of psychotic experiences, CHR-P, or psychotic disorders identified by screening inpatient and outpatient samples aged 12-64 receiving general psychiatric care. Psychotic experiences were identified by meeting threshold scores on validated self-reported questionnaires, and psychotic disorders and CHR-P by gold-standard structured interview assessments. A meta-analysis of each outcome was conducted using the Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimator method of estimating effect sizes in a random effects model. Results41 independent samples (k=36 outpatient) involving n=25,751 patients (58% female, mean age: 24.1 years) were included. Among a general psychiatric population, prevalence of psychotic experiences was 44.3% (95% CI: 35.8-52.8%; 28 samples, n=21,957); CHR-P was 26.4% (95% CI: 20.0-32.7%; 28 samples, n=14,395); and psychotic disorders was 6.6% (95% CI: 3.3-9.8%; 32 samples, n=20,371). ConclusionsHigh rates of psychotic spectrum illness in general psychiatric settings underscore need for secondary prevention with psychosis screening. These base rates can be used to plan training and resources required to conduct assessments for early detection, as well as build capacity in interventions for CHR-P and early psychosis in non-specialty mental health settings.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Can we detect the undetected? Comparing the prodromes of individuals with first episode psychosis detected and undetected by clinical high risk for psychosis services: an electronic health record study 97%
- Validation of an ICD-code-based case definition for psychotic illness across three health systems 97%
- Latent Factors of Language Disturbance and Relationships to Quantitative Speech Features 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trends in Prevalence of Cannabis Use Disorders among U.S. Veterans with and without Psychiatric Disorders Between 2005 and 2019 95%
- Psychiatric comorbidities in substance use disorders: Sex-based differences in a national real-world clinic sample 94%
- Penetrance and pleiotropy of polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia in 90,000 patients across three healthcare systems 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Associations between antipsychotic use, substance use and relapse risks in patients with schizophrenia - real-world evidence from two national cohorts 94%
- Analysis of diagnosis instability in electronic health records reveals diverse disease trajectories of severe mental illness 93%
- Predictors of suicidal thoughts and behavior in children: results from penalized logistic regression analyses in the ABCD study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Systematic Review on Psychological and Biological Mediators Between Adversity and Psychosis: Potential Targets for Treatment 94%
- Jumping To Conclusions, General Intelligence, And Psychosis Liability: Findings From The Multicentric EU-GEI Case-Control Study 94%
- Associations of cannabis use, tobacco use and incident anxiety, mood, and psychotic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.