ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
First-Episode Psychosis incidence pre-, during, and post-COVID-19 pandemic: a six-year natural quasi-experimental study in South London.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic may have been accompanied by an increased exposure to psychosis risk factors. We used a pre-during-post study design to examine variations in the incidence of First-Episode Psychosis (FEP) before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic in South London. We hypothesised that FEP rates rose during the pandemic and subsequently returned to pre-pandemic levels. Methods: Using the Clinical Record Interactive Search (CRIS) system, we screened individuals referred for FEP to Early Intervention Services for Psychosis (EISs) of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) from 1 March 2018 to 29 February 2024. Population data for the SLaM catchment area were obtained from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). We calculated crude incidence rates and used Poisson regression models to estimate age-sex-ethnicity-adjusted variation in incidence by year (March-to-February) expressed as Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR). Findings: A total of 3752 individuals experienced FEP during 5,487,858 person-years at risk, with a mean crude incidence of 68.4 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 66.2-70.6). The Poisson model showed a deviation from this mean at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020/21, with FEP rates rising to 77.5 per 100,000 person-years (95% CI: 71.8-83.2) and similar rates in 2021/22. FEP incidence gradually returned to the pre-pandemic levels in the following years. During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals of Black ethnicity experienced the greatest FEP increase, with an IRR of 1.45 (95% CI: 1.29-1.61) in 2020/21 and similar ratios in 2021/22. An increase was also observed in Asian individuals, with an IRR of 1.54 (95% CI: 1.20-1.88) in 2021/22, whereas no significant changes in incidence were observed for other ethnic groups across the pre-, during-, and post-pandemic periods. Interpretation: FEP incidence in South London increased during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly among Black and Asian individuals. Funding: None.
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.