ReviewEvidence-based mental health2018
Need for evidence-based early intervention programmes: a public health perspective.
Review in Evidence-based mental health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Baseline data of a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (STEP study).Early intervention in psychiatry · 2022Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in psychosis in Latin America: economic evaluation of Chilean services.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Bridging access and impact: primary care parenting intervention reduces early behavior problems in both virtual and in-person delivery modes.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the effects of the body on athletes' emotions and motivational behaviors from the perspective of big data public health.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Kenya Psychosis-Risk Outcomes Study (KePROS): Development of an Accelerated Medicine Partnership Schizophrenia-Aligned Project in Africa.Schizophrenia bulletin open · 2024Article
- Early Interventions for Clinical High-Risk State for Psychosis.Noro psikiyatri arsivi · 2021Review
- Article
- Transcending false dichotomies and diagnostic silos to reduce disease burden in mental disorders.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2020Article
- Association of preceding psychosis risk states and non-psychotic mental disorders with incidence of clinical psychosis in the general population: a prospective study in the NEMESIS-2 cohort.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2020Article
- Pluripotential Risk and Clinical Staging: Theoretical Considerations and Preliminary Data From a Transdiagnostic Risk Identification Approach.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the Combined Treatment Approach "Robin" (Standardized Manual and Smartphone App) for Adolescents at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
- Celebrating the achievements of evidence-based child and adolescent mental health … and looking ahead to its continuous growth.Evidence-based mental health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper attempts to discuss why the early intervention agenda based on the current convention of 'ultra-high risk' (UHR) or 'clinical high risk' (CHR) for 'transition' to psychosis framework has been destined to fall short of generating a measurable and economically feasible public health impact. To summarise: (1) the primary determinant of the 'transition' rate is not the predictive value of the UHR/CHR but the degree of the risk-enrichment; (2) even with a significant pre-test risk enrichment, the prognostic accuracy of the assessment tools in help-seeking population is mediocre, failing to meet the bare minimum thresholds; (3) therapeutic interventions arguably prolong the time-to-onset of psychotic symptoms instead of preventing 'transition', given that the UHR/CHR and 'transition' lie on the same unidimensional scale of positive psychotic symptoms; (4) meta-analytical evidence confirms that specific effective treatment for preventing 'transition' (the goal-primary outcome-of the UHR/CHR framework) is not available; (5) the UHR/CHR-'transition' is a precarious target for research given the unpredictability driven by the sampling strategies and the natural ebb and flow of psychotic symptoms within and between individuals, leading to false positives; (6) only a negligible portion of those who develop psychosis benefits from UHR/CHR services (see
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.