ArticleEarly intervention in psychiatry2026
Duration of Care in Early Intervention in Psychosis Services: A Multi-Perspective Qualitative Study.
Article in Early intervention in psychiatry, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEarly Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services in England are commissioned to provide up to 3 years' support to people experiencing first episode psychosis, but the optimal duration remains debated. This qualitative study aimed to explore how decisions about EIP duration are made and experienced by multiple stakeholders.
methodsQualitative longitudinal study comprising semi-structured interviews with EIP Service Users (SUs), carers, EIP practitioners, GPs, and mental health service commissioners; follow-up interviews with SUs 6-11 months later. Data were collected between September 2022 and September 2024 and informed by information power. Data were thematically analysed by a multidisciplinary team. Patient and carer involvement and engagement were integral to the study.
resultsThe 3-year time limit of contact with EIP teams was thought to work well when SUs felt supported and ready for discharge, but constrained shared decision making when they did not. Some participants described early discharge before 3 years, either as a negotiated decision based on wellness and readiness to move on or as a consequence of poor engagement. Others reported extended care beyond 3 years in response to individual needs or delays in transfer to Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs). This flexibility in duration varied across teams and trusts. Well-managed, relational care was viewed as key to effective discharge.
conclusionFlexible, person-centred episodes of care and collaborative discharge planning, supported by effective coordination between EIP, primary care, and CMHTs, are essential to sustaining relational practice and ensuring smoother transitions.
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.