ArticleEarly intervention in psychiatry2025
Which Sociodemographic and Pathway to Care Factors Influence the Wait Time for Early Intervention for Psychosis? A Mental Health Electronic Health Records Analysis in South London.
Article in Early intervention in psychiatry, 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.
- Which Sociodemographic and Pathway to Care Factors Influence the Wait Time for Early Intervention for Psychosis? A Mental Health Electronic Health Records Analysis in South London.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimIn 2016, the Access and Waiting Time Standard (AWTS) was introduced in England, UK, outlining that people with first-episode psychosis should receive treatment from an early intervention for psychosis (EIP) service within 2 weeks. We examined sociodemographic, pathways to care (PtC), and clinical factors associated with EIP service wait time.
methodWe collected de-identified data from a large mental health provider in South London, UK. We included patients referred and accepted to EIP services as inpatient or community contacts between 1 May 2016 and 30 April 2019, providing 3 years of data from the introduction of AWTS. Descriptive statistics and multivariable linear regression were performed.
resultsA total of 1806 patients were identified with a mean age of 30 (SD: 10.7) years, of whom 86.3% (n = 1559) accessed community EIP and 13.7% (n = 247) accessed inpatient EIP; of these, 26.7% were not seen within 2 weeks. Community EIP patients waited longer adj.β = 2.21 days (95% CI: 2.05-2.37) compared with inpatient EIP patients, and being older was associated with longer wait time. Conversely, a shorter wait time was associated with A&E [adj.β = -0.22 days (95% CI: -0.36, -0.10)] and 'other' [adj.β = -0.21 days (95% CI: -0.36, -0.03)] PtC characteristics. White non-British and South Asian patients had shorter wait times compared with White British patients; however, this difference diminished after adjusting for PtC and clinical factors.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that individual factors, PtC, and mode of contact influence wait time for EIP services. More than a quarter of patients were not seen within 2 weeks, indicating that targeted support in community EIP services is needed to meet clinical guidelines.
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.