ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Availability and effectiveness of multicomponent interventions for early psychosis in 20 low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most individuals with psychosis live in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where treatment delays and gaps are common. Little is known about the types of interventions for first-episode psychosis (FEP) and clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis in LMICs and their effectiveness. This systematic review aimed to identify treatment components delivered for FEP or CHR in LMICs and evaluate their effectiveness. Methods: In this systematic review, we searched PsycINFO, Embase, and Medline for relevant studies published, without any language restrictions, between database inception and Jan 23, 2022. This search was updated on May 15, 2024 and on January 2, 2026. Records were included if they evaluated at least one more intervention beyond medication and assessment for FEP and beyond assessment for CHR, in LMICs with at least one follow-up. Included papers were classified as programmes (offering FEP/CHR services) or research studies of intervention(s)/outcomes in FEP/CHR. Treatment components were categorised as guideline-based or additional. Effectiveness was assessed across 15 outcomes defined Findings: Of 6046 screened records, 125 were included (average: 152 participants; range: 10-1268) across 20 countries and five languages (English, Spanish, Portuguese, Turkish, and Persian). These comprised 10 programmes and 30 studies for FEP in 16 countries (11.7% of LMICs), and eight programmes and eight studies for CHR across eight countries (5.8%). They delivered guideline-based and additional components; however, psychological and psychosocial components were scarce. For FEP, the addition of any psychological or psychosocial component was associated with improved outcomes relative to medication alone. Patient psychoeducation and family interventions were the most frequently implemented components. For CHR, limited data prevented conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment components in LMICs. Interpretation: Despite limited and moderate-quality evidence, our findings suggest that early intervention can improve outcomes in FEP. However, coverage remains limited to few LMICs and even they struggle to provide comprehensive care. Further research is needed to strengthen, scale, and culturally adapt such services. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada Research Chairs program.
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.