Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:56:28.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duration of untreated psychosis: the relative contribution of individual vs. community factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

A Frost,
V Carr,
S Catts and
B O'Toole
A Frost
Affiliation:
Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital
V Carr
Affiliation:
Neuroscience Institute of Schizophrenia and Allied Disorders (NISAD)
S Catts
Affiliation:
Hospital and Community Psychiatry, University of Queensland
B O'Toole
Affiliation:
ANZAC Institute, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Abstracts from ‘Brainwaves’— The Australasian Society for Psychiatric Research Annual Meeting 2006, 6–8 December, Sydney, Australia
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2006, pp. 250
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Blackwell Munksgaard

Background:

Although some debate exists in the literature, there is a general consensus that patients with a longer duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) have poorer health outcomes than those treated early. Two recent meta-analyses have established this relationship as being of moderate effect size. Recent research has focused on reducing DUP through either a community approach or a ‘at-risk’ individuals approach. However, it is not currently established in the literature the relative contributions of individual vs. community factors predicting DUP.

Methods:

The present study examined an existing research cohort of 456 Early Psychosis (EP) patients, from 19 mental health teams. The DUP of 326 of these patients had been assessed by the clinician. Multilevel modeling was used to establish the relative contribution of service level variables, and patient level variables.

Results:

The initial null model showed that the service level accounted for 0.54% of potentially explainable variance in the total model; this was not significant (P = 0.36). The remaining 99.46% of variance was accounted for by the patient level. An exploratory analysis of individual factors showed that item 7 of the HoNOS (Depressed Mood) had a significant positive relationship to DUP (P = 0.01), while item 10 (problems with ADLs) had a negative relationship approaching significance (P = 0.06).

Conclusions:

While other individual predictive relationships need to be tested, this study identifies depression as a candidate risk factor for prolonged DUP. Importantly, this research also highlights the central importance of individual factors over community factors in producing treatment delays.