Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40783945›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025

Navigating Discharge From Early Intervention in Psychosis Services: A Qualitative Exploration of the Experiences of Service Users and Carers.

Michelle Rickett, Tom Kingstone, Veenu Gupta, David Shiers, Paul French, Belinda Lennox, Ed Penington, Ryan Williams, Isobel Hoppe, Carolyn A Chew-Graham

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

10 authors.

Michelle RickettSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-2503-9951
Tom KingstoneSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9179-2303
Veenu GuptaDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5082-5068
David ShiersSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2531-5837
Paul FrenchClinical Academic, Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Nursing and Public Health, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4300-387X
Belinda LennoxDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4972-8786
Ed PeningtonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7668-438X
Ryan WilliamsDivision of Psychiatry, Imperial College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8486-4903
Isobel HoppeSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-2593-3937
Carolyn A Chew-GrahamSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9722-9981

Funding

This study/project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Ref: NIHR203277). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. CC-G part-funded by West Midlands Applied Research Collaboration.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEarly Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services in England offer up to 3 years' time-limited support to people experiencing early psychosis. Service users (SUs) are discharged to primary care, a community mental health team (CMHT), or other specialist mental health service. The aim of this study is to explore the SU and carer journey through discharge from EIP and into the early post-discharge period.

methodsQualitative longitudinal study comprising semi-structured interviews with SUs and carers at, or shortly after, discharge from EIP, and follow-up interviews with SUs 6-11 months later. Data collection conducted between January 2023-September 2024 and informed by information power. Data were thematically analysed by a multidisciplinary team.

resultsSUs and carers expressed their desire to be actively involved in EIP discharge planning and decision-making. They contrasted close relationships with EIP practitioners with inaccessibility of care and difficulties navigating healthcare systems after discharge. Some SUs described feelings of abandonment and expressed a wish for transitional support, and proactive, relationship-based care post-discharge. Carers played an important role as patient advocates but were rarely offered support themselves.

conclusionImproved collaboration is needed between SUs, carers and primary care/CMHT practitioners in the build-up to EIP discharge. There should be proactive contact from primary care at the point of discharge and in the early post-discharge period. Carer needs are often overlooked; primary care could utilise the 'carers register' and proactively offer support. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and carer involvement and engagement was key to all stages of this study. The research team met regularly with our two co-investigators with lived experience (as a service user and a carer), who contributed to data analysis and writing this paper. We worked closely with our patient and carer advisory group, EXTEND-ing, throughout the research process. They helped formulate research questions, co-designed topic guides and participant information sheets, and contributed to data analysis and interpretation.

Indexed as

CaregiversEarly Medical InterventionPatient DischargePsychotic DisordersAdultEnglandFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicLongitudinal StudiesMaleMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedQualitative Researchdischarge planningearly interventionprimary carepsychosisqualitative methodssevere mental illness

Identifiers

PMID40783945
PMCPMC12335836

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.