Over the past two decades, research and clinical resources on clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis have both expanded, with goals to better understanding risk and protective factors on the course of illness and inform early intervention efforts. However, some studies have highlighted potential sampling bias among CHR research studies, raising questions about generalizability of findings and inequitable access to early detection and intervention. The current study sought to explore these questions by comparing 94 participants in a CHR longitudinal monitoring study across North America (NAPLS-2) who converted to syndromal psychosis over the course of the study (CHR-CV) to 171 participants who presented for treatment at a localized first-episode psychosis service (FES) after converting.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFDuration of untreated psychosis (DUP), the period between psychosis onset and entry into care, is a time of great vulnerability. Longer DUP predicts poorer outcomes, and delayed treatment access can limit the effectiveness of coordinated specialty care (CSC) services. This column details one component of a broader early detection campaign, a quality improvement intervention focusing on reducing the delay between confirmation of eligibility and admission to care within a benchmark period of 7 days.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAlthough the clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) paradigm has become well-established over the past two decades, one key component has received surprisingly little investigative attention: the predictive validity of the criteria for conversion or transition to frank psychosis. The current study evaluates the predictive validity of the transition to psychosis as measured by the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS) in CHR individuals. Participants included 33 SIPS converters and 399 CHR non-converters both from the North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study (NAPLS-2), as well as a sample of 67 separately ascertained first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients from the STEP program.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMentoring programs, which pair youth with caring, non-parental adults with the goal of promoting positive youth development, are an increasingly popular strategy for early intervention with at-risk youth. However, important questions remain about the extent to which these interventions improve youth outcomes. The present study involved a comprehensive meta-analysis of all outcome studies of intergenerational, one-on-one youth mentoring programs written in the English language between 1975 and 2017, using rigorous inclusion criteria designed to align with developmental theories of youth mentoring.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF