ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2025
A comparison of pathways to care in at-risk mental states and first episode psychosis: a mental health electronic clinical records analysis in the East of England, UK.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDelays in treatment for individuals experiencing early signs of psychosis are associated with poorer outcomes. Few people presenting with first episode psychosis (FEP) access early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services during the prodromal stage. In this study, we compared pathways to care (PtC) in people with At-Risk Mental States (ARMS) and FEP and explored the sociodemographic factors associated with accessing EIP during ARMS or FEP.
methodsSociodemographic and PtC data were collected from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT) Research Database. All individuals referred and accepted to CPFT EIP services as either ARMS or FEP between 1st April 2018 and 31st October 2019 (N = 158) were included.
resultsThere was strong evidence that ARMS patients accessing EIP were younger and were less likely to have a minority ethnic status than FEP patients. In terms of PtC, ARMS patients had fewer numbers of contacts, were less likely to be referred via the acute services, less likely to be involuntarily admitted and had reduced family involvement in their help-seeking. No differences were identified between ARMS and FEP in terms of living circumstances, area-level deprivation, urbanicity, employment status, duration of PtC, or police involvement in PtC.
conclusionOur findings highlight that disparities exist between ARMS and FEP patients in terms of sociodemographic and PtC characteristics. Further research is required to replicate these findings and investigate the effectiveness of interventions to encourage and facilitate access to EIP at an earlier stage to improve outcomes.
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.