Skip to main content

Table 1 Overview of included studies

From: A review of economic evaluations of health care for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis

Author (year)

Population

Study design (and sample if applicable)

Setting

Intervention

Comparator

Time horizon

At-risk populations

Ising et al., 2017 [28]

Ultra-high risk of psychosis

RCT

•N = 196

•Mean age: 23

Proportion male: 51% (intervention) and 49% (comparator)

Secondary care in the Netherlands

CBT (for ultra-high risk)

Routine care

4 years

Jin et al., 2020 [29]

Clinical high-risk of psychosis

Discrete event simulation whole-disease model

Secondary care in the UK

CBT plus practice as usual

Practice as usual

Lifetime

Perez et al., 2015 [30]

General practice referrals to early intervention services

Decision tree model

Primary and secondary care in the UK

Low intensity intervention (a postal campaign consisting of biannual guidelines to help and refer individuals with early signs of psychosis)

High intensity (inclusion of a specialist mental health professional who liaised with each practice and a theory-based education package)

Practice as usual

2 years

Wijnen et al., 2020 [31] b

Individuals at ultra-high risk of developing psychosis (or with first-episode psychosis)

State transition (Markov) model

Secondary care in the Netherlands

Cognitive

behaviour therapy

Care as usual

5-years

First episode psychosis populations

Behan et al., 2020 [32]

First-episode psychosis

Retrospective cohort

•N = 201

•Median age: 32

•Proportion male: 56%

Community care in Ireland

Early intervention (including CBT, family education and intervention, and psychosocial intervention focusing on vocational or educational needs)

Treatment as usual

1 year

Breitborde et al., 2009 [33]

First-episode psychosis

Simulation model

Community care in the USA

Multifamily group psychoeducation

Pharmacotherapy

2-, 5-, 10- and 20-year scenarios

Cocchi et al., 2011 [34]

First-episode psychosis

Retrospective cohort

•N = 46

•Mean age: 25 (intervention) and 26 (comparator)

•Proportion male: 70% (intervention) and 74% (comparator)

Secondary care in Italy

Early intervention programme (including individual pharmacotherapy, CBT, psychoeducation, motivational sessions, support group and various social group activities)

Standard care

5 years

Hastrup et al., 2013 [35]

First-episode psychosis (in contact with services for the first time)

RCT

•N = 547

•Mean age: NR

•Proportion male: NR

Secondary and community care in Denmark

Early interventions for first-episode psychosis (including assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment, social skills training and low dose antipsychotic medication) for two years

Standard care (community mental health centres)

5 years

Health Quality Ontario 2018 [36]

Newly diagnosed psychosis

State transition (Markov) model

Canada

CBT for psychosis (delivered by physicians or non-physicians) plus usual care

Usual care (medications, inpatient and outpatient mental health services)

5 years

Jin et al., 2020 [29]

First-episode psychosis

Discrete event simulation whole-disease model

Secondary care in the UK

First-line oral antipsychotic medication (quetiapine, haloperidol, ariprazole, risperidone, amisulpride, olanzapine and placebo)

Interventions were compared with each other

Lifetime

Antipsychotic medication plus family intervention

Family intervention alone or antipsychotic medication alone

McCrone et al., 2010 [37]

First-episode psychosis or had previously disengaged without treatment

RCT

•N = 144

•Mean age: 26 (intervention) and 27 (comparator)

•Proportion male: 55% (intervention) and 74% (comparator)

Secondary and community care in the UK

Early intervention service (assertive outreach) which included low-dose medication regimes, CBT, family therapy and vocational rehabilitation

Standard care (community mental health teams with no extra training on dealing with psychosis)

18 months

Mihalopoulos et al., 2009 [38]

First-episode psychosis

Cohort with historical control group

•N = 65

•Mean age: 22

•Proportion male: 65%

Secondary and community care in Australia

Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) care (including assessment team, inpatient unit, outpatient management service and smaller therapeutic programs)

Treatment as usual (community care)

8 years

Rosenheck et al., 2016 [39]

First-episode psychosis

RCT

•N = 404

•Mean age: 23

•Proportion male: 77% (intervention) and 66% (comparator)

Community care in the USA

Navigate early intervention package (including personalised medication management, family psychoeducation, individual resilience-focused illness self-management therapy and supported education and employment)

Standard (community) care

2 years

Stant et al., 2007 [40]

First-episode non-affective psychosis

RCT

•N = 128

•Mean age: NR

•Proportion male: 69% (intervention) and 70% (comparator)

Community care in the Netherlands

Guided discontinuation strategy (consisting of gradually tapering antipsychotic

doses and eventually discontinuing antipsychotics if

feasible)

Maintenance treatment

2 years

Wong et al., 2011 [41]

First-episode psychosis

Retrospective with historical control

•N = 130

•Mean age:23 (intervention) and 24 (comparator)

•Proportion male: 52% (intervention) and 54% (comparator)

Secondary and community care in Hong Kong

EASY, a specialized multi-disciplinary service programme (including public education facilitating early detection and a comprehensive intervention)

Standard care (‘pre-EASY’)—a publicly funded general psychiatric service with inpatient and outpatient service and community support

2 years

  1. ARMS at-risk mental state, CBT cognitive behavioural therapy, EASY Early Assessment Service for Young People with Early Psychosis, FEP first episode psychosis, RCT randomised controlled trial
  2. aJin et al. (2020) [29] constructed a whole-disease model which addresses multiple decision populations and includes nineteen interventions and comparators. It is included in the table twice as it covered decision problems in the FEP population and for those at clinical high risk of psychosis
  3. bWijnen et al. (2020) [31] report the development of an economic model that can be used for people at high-risk and for FEP and present an example using the evidence from Ising et al. (2017) [28] in the high-risk population