ArticleWorld psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA)2026
Do early intervention services for psychosis maintain their effects after transition to usual/modular care? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 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.
- Long-Term Trajectories of Multidimensional Outcomes in Psychosis Following Early Intervention During the Critical Period: The PEPP-Montreal 10+ Study Protocol.Early intervention in psychiatry · 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis have demonstrated superiority to usual care/modular care (UC/MC) until the end of their delivery. However, the maintenance effects of EIS care after transition to UC/MC are less clear. We aimed to compare these effects vs. UC/MC at least one year after the end of EIS care. This PRISMA and MOOSE-compliant systematic review searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases and Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, without time or language restrictions. We included studies initially designed as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EIS vs. UC/MC in patients with early-phase psychosis, in which both the intervention and control groups were followed for at least 12 months after cessation of EIS care in the intervention group. Co-primary outcomes were psychiatric hospitalization, duration of hospitalization, and drop-out at the end of follow-up (preferably 5 years post-EIS initiation). Secondary outcomes were severity of total, positive and negative symptoms; quality of life, work involvement, remission, legal offences, antipsychotic use, and suicide attempts. We meta-analyzed six RCTs with data from 13 papers, including 1,416 individuals (mean age: 23.9 years, females: 36.7%). After 2-3 years of receiving UC/MC, subsequent to 2-3 years of EIS care or UC/MC, individuals who originally received EIS care spent less days hospitalized than those continuing UC/MC (n=5, standardized mean difference, SMD=0.128, 95% CI: 0.019-0.237, p=0.021). However, although we confirmed the superiority of EIS care to UC/MC at the end of the intervention period (except for work involvement and legal offences), the two groups did not differ significantly at 2-3 years post-EIS care regarding hospitalization, all-cause drop-out, quality of life; severity of total, positive and negative symptoms; work involvement, remission, legal offences, antipsychotic use, and suicide attempts. In summary, EIS care did not maintain its superiority over UC/MC 2-3 years after its cessation across meta-analyzable outcomes, except for duration of hospitalizations. These results support the need to further develop and potentially extend full or individualized EIS delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.