2011
DOI: 10.1017/s0033291711001140
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The role of treatment delay in predicting 5-year outcomes in an early intervention program

Abstract: Delay between onset of non-specific symptoms and treatment may be a more important influence on long-term functioning for first-episode patients than DUP. This suggests the possible value of treating such signs and symptoms as early as possible regardless of the effectiveness of such interventions in reducing likelihood or severity of psychotic symptoms.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
37
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
1
37
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, we recognize that age at first presentation, contact or hospitalization are not necessarily indicative of age at first onset, and that a small number of people will experience several months or even years of untreated psychosis [196]. Second, disorder when measured by other endophenotypic markers, such as cognitive decline or social withdrawal, may have given rise to alternative incidence patterns than those typically reported; here duration of untreated illness becomes relevant [197], although we note a dearth of incidence studies which have incorporated this concept. Further, we recognize that studies included in this report adopted different definitions of age (first presentation/contact/hospitalization) across which we assumed some commonality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, we recognize that age at first presentation, contact or hospitalization are not necessarily indicative of age at first onset, and that a small number of people will experience several months or even years of untreated psychosis [196]. Second, disorder when measured by other endophenotypic markers, such as cognitive decline or social withdrawal, may have given rise to alternative incidence patterns than those typically reported; here duration of untreated illness becomes relevant [197], although we note a dearth of incidence studies which have incorporated this concept. Further, we recognize that studies included in this report adopted different definitions of age (first presentation/contact/hospitalization) across which we assumed some commonality.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Study protocol was fully explained, and written informed consent was obtained according Duration of untreated illness was estimated as the period of time between the onset of any noticeable changes in behaviour leading up to psychosis and initiation of treatment (in weeks). Treatment in this case was defined as initiation of antipsychotic medication of a dose and for sufficient time (4 weeks) that would lead to significant response in most patients (Norman et al, 2012).…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) was identified by the length of active psychosis (in weeks) before the initiation of treatment, and duration of untreated illness (DUI) was the length of time between the onset of any noticeable changes in behavior leading up to psychosis (Norman et al, 2012).…”
Section: Diagnosis and Pretreatment Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%