Treatment outcomes for young people at clinical high risk for psychosis: Data from a specialized clinic

Aim Treatment for youth exhibiting signs of clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR‐P) has been emphasized in recent years, but there is need for a greater understanding of the course of symptoms and functioning across treatment. The aim of this study is to describe 10 years of naturalistic treatment...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Early intervention in psychiatry 2022-05, Vol.16 (5), p.500-508
Main Authors: West, Michelle L., Parrish, Emma M., Friedman‐Yakoobian, Michelle
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Ambulatory Care Facilities
Behavior modification
Child & adolescent psychiatry
CHR‐P
Clients
clinical high risk for psychosis
Clinical outcomes
coordinated specialty care
CSC
Early Diagnosis
Humans
Intervention
longitudinal treatment outcomes
Psychosis
Psychotic Disorders - diagnosis
Psychotic Disorders - epidemiology
Psychotic Disorders - therapy
Skills
Social Adjustment
Teenagers
Treatment Outcome
Young adults
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim Treatment for youth exhibiting signs of clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR‐P) has been emphasized in recent years, but there is need for a greater understanding of the course of symptoms and functioning across treatment. The aim of this study is to describe 10 years of naturalistic treatment outcomes in a real‐world, specialized CHR‐P outpatient clinic, the Center for Early Detection, Assessment, and Response to Risk (CEDAR) Clinic. Methods The CEDAR Clinic routinely collects client outcomes data for the purposes of program development, monitoring treatment effectiveness, and characterizing the clinic population. Clients are assessed at baseline, every 6 months (for up to 2 years depending on duration of treatment), and at the end of treatment. A series of mixed‐effects models were performed to analyse change over time in outcomes (symptoms and functioning) between baseline and follow‐up time points. Results Over time, clients' (N = 123) positive (F = 11.8, p 
ISSN:1751-7885
1751-7893
DOI:10.1111/eip.13187