ArticleThe British journal of clinical psychology2026
A scoping review of service user experiences of potential harm in early intervention in psychosis services in the UK.
Article in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2026. 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.
- A scoping review of service user experiences of potential harm in early intervention in psychosis services in the UK.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEarly intervention in psychosis (EIP) services provide care for individuals experiencing first-episode psychosis and are considered both clinically and cost-effective. While many have positive experiences of EIP, there have also been reports of perceived harm. This scoping review synthesized qualitative evidence on service user perspectives of potential harm in EIP services in the UK, to consider how services may continue to improve practice to meet the needs of their service users.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review following a pre-registered protocol. Systematic searches were performed in PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Medline on 9th October 2024, and updated searches on 12th January 2026. We included peer-reviewed qualitative studies exploring service user experiences in EIP services in the UK. Data on reported harms from eligible studies were thematically analysed.
resultsThirteen studies met inclusion criteria. We identified four main themes: (1) Intersection of stigma and lack of cultural awareness; (2) Inappropriate or inadequate support; (3) Poor relationships and communication; and (4) Challenges in the discharge process.
conclusionsWhile EIP services offer the current gold standard of care for first-episode psychosis, our review highlighted some areas where harm was perceived to have arisen. Such information presents potential targets for service improvement. Strengthening communication and enhancing information sharing may help mitigate potential harms and optimize service user experiences. Further research to quantify the prevalence of harms within EIP services is needed to inform best practices and ensure equitable, person-centred care.
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.