ArticleEarly intervention in psychiatry2026
Identifying Research Priorities in Early Psychosis: A Collaborative Approach to Shaping the Future of Early Psychosis Clinical Trials in Australia.
Article in Early intervention in psychiatry, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPsychotic disorders are major contributors to disability and mortality, disproportionately affecting young people. Despite advances in early psychosis care, there are still barriers to treatment, suboptimal outcomes, and limited therapeutic options. Given limited funding for psychosis research, priority setting that incorporates perspectives from across the sector, but especially those with lived experience, is vital for directing resources. This paper outlines the Australian Early Psychosis Collaborative Consortium's process for identifying priorities to guide early psychosis clinical trial research in Australia.
methodsQualitative data were collected via online surveys and stakeholder workshops with people with lived experience, carers, clinicians and researchers. Content analysis was conducted, followed by iterative refinement and ranking of priority research questions across multiple stages.
resultsSix broad themes and 55 research questions were identified through both the initial survey and stakeholder consultations, culminating in ten research questions for ranking in the final poll. The top-ranked priority was identifying treatments with the most enduring benefits for individuals with early psychosis. Other priorities included: identifying effective treatments for negative symptoms; addressing trauma in psychosis risk and treatment; focusing on supports for neurodevelopmental conditions; understanding and targeting risk factors to prevent psychosis onset; translation of research findings to clinical care; considerations of cultural diversity; and effective support for people leaving early psychosis services.
conclusionThese findings reaffirm the core objective of specialised early intervention for psychosis: to support long-term recovery and improved outcomes. Identified priorities offer direction for future research and resource allocation that reflects diverse stakeholder perspectives.
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.