Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37113551›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023

Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries.

Alexandre Andrade Loch, Ana Caroline Lopes-Rocha, Feten Fekih-Romdhane, Martinus Theodorus van de Bilt, Gonzalo Salazar de Pablo, Paolo Fusar-Poli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Alexandre Andrade LochLaboratorio de Neurociencias (LIM 27), Faculdade de Medicina, Instituto de Psiquiatria, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ana Caroline Lopes-RochaLaboratorio de Neurociencias (LIM 27), Faculdade de Medicina, Instituto de Psiquiatria, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Feten Fekih-RomdhaneFaculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis El Manar University, Tunis, Tunisia.
Martinus Theodorus van de BiltLaboratorio de Neurociencias (LIM 27), Faculdade de Medicina, Instituto de Psiquiatria, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Gonzalo Salazar de PabloEarly Psychosis - Interventions and Clinical-Detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Paolo Fusar-PoliEarly Psychosis - Interventions and Clinical-Detection (EPIC) Lab, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRHôpital Razi de La Manouba · TNHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESUniversity of Pavia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR) paradigm is one of the best studied preventive paradigms in psychiatry. However, most studies have been conducted in high-income countries. It is unclear if knowledge from such countries applies to low and middle-income countries (LAMIC), and if there are specific limitations hindering CHR research there. Our aim is to systematically review studies on CHR from LAMIC. Methods: A multistep PRISMA-compliant literature search was performed in PubMed and Web of Science for articles published until 1/03/2022, conducted in LAMIC, addressing the concept and correlates of CHR. Study characteristics as well as limitations were reported. Corresponding authors of the included studies were invited to answer an online poll. Quality assessment was done with the MMAT. Results: A total of 109 studies were included in the review: none from low-income countries, 8 from lower middle-income countries, and 101 from upper middle-income countries. The most frequent limitations were small sample size (47.9%), cross-sectional design (27.1%), and follow-up issues (20.8%). Mean quality of included studies was of 4.4. Out of the 43 corresponding authors, 12 (27.9%) completed the online poll. They cited further limitations as few financial resources (66.7%), no involvement of population (58.2%) and cultural barriers (41.7%). Seventy five percent researchers reported that CHR research should be conducted differently in LAMIC compared to high-income countries, due to structural and cultural issues. Stigma was mentioned in three out of five sections of the poll. Discussion: Results show the discrepancy of available evidence on CHR in LAMIC, given the shortage of resources in such countries. Future directions should aim to increase the knowledge on individuals at CHR in such settings, and to address stigma and cultural factors that may play a role in the pathways toward care in psychosis. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=316816, CRD42022316816.

Indexed as

at risk mental stateattenuated psychosisschizophreniastigmasubclinical psychosis

Identifiers

PMID37113551
PMCPMC10126325
OpenAlexW4364377668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.