Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-z5d2w Total loading time: 0.451 Render date: 2021-12-01T04:00:20.224Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Psychosis incidence through the prism of early intervention services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

J. B. Kirkbride*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
C. Stubbins
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
P. B. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
*
J. B. Kirkbride, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Box 189, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK. Email: jbk25@cam.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Summary

We know little about first-episode psychosis epidemiology beyond cities or when measured through early intervention in psychosis services. We present results from 18 months of the 3-year Social Epidemiology of Psychoses in East Anglia (SEPEA) study of incepted incidence observed through five early intervention services. We identified 378 eligible individuals (incidence: 45.1/100 000 person-years, 95% CI 40.8–49.9). Rates varied across these services, but were 2–3 times higher than those on which services were commissioned. Risk decreased with age, was nearly doubled among men and differed by ethnic group; doubled in people of mixed ethnicity but lower for those of Asian origin, compared with White British people. Psychosis risk among ethnic minorities was lower than reported in urban settings, which has potential implications for aetiology. Our data suggest considerable psychosis morbidity in diverse, rural communities.

Type
Short reports
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

Research into social factors in the aetiology of psychotic disorders has demonstrated notable variation observed by age and gender, Reference Kirkbride, Fearon, Morgan, Dazzan, Morgan and Tarrant1 cannabis use, Reference Moore, Zammit, Lingford-Hughes, Barnes, Jones and Burke2 immigrant status and ethnicity, Reference Cantor-Graae and Selten3 and urban birth and upbringing. Reference March, Hatch, Morgan, Kirkbride, Bresnahan and Fearon4 This epidemiological landscape is taken from studies predominately conducted in large cities. Reference March, Hatch, Morgan, Kirkbride, Bresnahan and Fearon4 Less is understood about these risk markers outside of conurbations, where almost one-fifth of the English population lives. 5 Delineating such epidemiology is also relevant to health services planning, particularly given recent reports that early intervention in psychosis services in both urban and rural English communities have observed psychosis rates up to three times higher than those upon which such services were first commissioned (i.e. 15/100 000 person-years). 6,Reference Cheng, Kirkbride, Lennox, Perez, Masson and Lawrence7 We present initial findings from the Social Epidemiology of Psychoses in East Anglia (SEPEA; www.sepea.org) study, a large, 3-year population-based first-episode psychoses study.

Method

The study methodology was based on the principles of a major epidemiological study of first-episode psychosis previously conducted in England, Reference Kirkbride, Fearon, Morgan, Dazzan, Morgan and Tarrant1 modified for use in early intervention services. We established a surveillance system to record socio-demographic and clinical data on all people aged 16–35 years resident within East Anglia, referred and accepted to our early intervention services with first-episode psychosis over 3 years, from 1 August 2009. ICD-10 clinical and research (OPCRIT) diagnoses for psychotic disorder (F10-39) are established at 6 months and 3 years after referral. Here, we report sample characteristics and initial incidence rates from the first 18 months of case ascertainment, using 2009 mid-term census population estimates as the denominator, adjusted for study duration. Poisson regression (Stata, version 11) explored covariate effects. Full method is given in the online supplement.

Results

Over the first 18 months of the study 510 people were referred to early intervention services in East Anglia with suspected first-episode psychosis. In total 70% (n = 357) met inclusion criteria during over 835 000 person-years of follow-up. The main reason for exclusion was not meeting clinical criteria for psychosis at referral (n = 106; 20.8%) (see online Fig. DS1 for a complete breakdown of exclusions).

The crude incidence of clinically relevant psychotic disorder in East Anglia was estimated as 42.6/100 000 person-years (95% CI 38.4–47.2). Rates were generally similar across services (online Table DS1), but were notably raised in Great Yarmouth and Waveney (54.9/100 000 person-years; 95% CI 39.9–75.4). Completed demographic data were available on 357 individuals (92.4%) at the time of analysis. Median age at first presentation was similar for women (21.9 years, IQR = 18.2–25.8) and men (22.3 years, IQR = 19.3–26.7). Risk was elevated among men (RR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4–2.2), after adjustment for age and ethnicity. Our data also suggested risk differed by ethnicity. Compared with the White British group, people of Black (RR = 1.8; 95% CI 1.0–3.3) and mixed ethnicities (RR = 2.1; 95% CI 1.3–3.6) were at elevated risk of psychotic disorder after adjustment for age and gender. By contrast, people of Asian origin (including the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia) were at lower risk of psychosis compared with the White British group (adjusted RR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.3–0.9) (Table 1).

A total of 50% of our sample were unemployed at initial referral; 25% were in paid employment, 19% were students and 4% were unpaid family carers; information was missing from 2% of our sample.

Discussion

We identified variation in the incidence of psychosis in a diverse, mainly rural English region. The overall incidence was higher than typically reported in first-episode psychosis studies of the entire adult age range (16–64 years), but this is to be expected given our lower age limit (35 years) and the decline in risk with age. Reference Kirkbride, Fearon, Morgan, Dazzan, Morgan and Tarrant1 For comparison, the incidence for people 16–35 years old in the ÆSOP study varied from 32.0/100 000 person-years in Bristol to 74.0/100 000 person-years in south-east London, placing our estimates within this range. Nevertheless, observations from both SEPEA and ÆSOP are consistent with recent empirical data Reference Cheng, Kirkbride, Lennox, Perez, Masson and Lawrence7 that the incidence of psychotic disorders seen through early intervention services is generally three times greater than the figure upon which such services were commissioned. 6 This has important implications for mental health service provision. In our sample, age at first presentation was similar for both genders before 36 years old, a point easily overlooked in entire adult-onset samples, where median age at onset typically occurs a few years later for women Reference Kirkbride, Fearon, Morgan, Dazzan, Morgan and Tarrant1 as a result of a secondary peak of psychosis close to the time of menopause, Reference Grigoriadis and Seeman8 not captured by our early intervention services data.

TABLE 1 Sample characteristics and adjusted rate ratios in the SEPEA study at 18 monthsFootnote a

Variable Participants,
n (%)
Denominator,
n (%)Footnote b
AdjustedFootnote c
relative risk
(95% CI)
Total 357 (100) 838 574 (100)
Early intervention service (n = 357)
 Cambridgeshire,
 Peterborough & Royston 122 (34.2) 306 283 (36.5)
 West Norfolk 17 (4.8) 41 765 (5.0)
 Central Norfolk 91 (25.5) 219 860 (26.2)
 Great Yarmouth
 & Waveney 38 (10.6) 69 218 (8.3)
 Suffolk 89 (24.9) 201 448 (24.0)
Gender (n = 330)
 Women 115 (34.8) 405 221 (48.3) 1
 Men 215 (66.2) 433 353 (51.7) 1.7 (1.4–2.2)
Age group (n = 330)
 16–17 52 (15.8) 71 929 (8.6) 1
 18–19 53 (16.1) 88 976 (10.6) 0.8 (0.6–1.2)
 20–24 118 (35.8) 219 157 (26.1) 0.7 (0.5–1.0)
 25–29 73 (22.1) 213 385 (25.4) 0.5 (0.3–0.7)
 30–35 34 (10.3) 245 127 (29.2) 0.2 (0.1–0.3)
Ethnicity (n = 330)
 White British 261 (79.1) 671 588 (80.1) 1
 White non-British 21 (6.4) 50 882 (6.1) 1.2 (0.8–1.9)
 Mixed ethnicity 15 (4.5) 17 364 (2.1) 2.1 (1.3–3.6)
 Black 12 (3.6) 18 471 (2.2) 1.8 (1.0–3.3)
 Asian 12 (3.6) 69 014 (8.2) 0.5 (0.3–0.9)
 Other ethnicities 9 (2.7) 11 255 (1.3) 2.3 (1.2–4.5)

a Because the study is ongoing, detailed sociodemographic data were only available for a subset (n = 309) of the total incidence sample (n = 378). Thus, incidence rates were reported where we had data on the full sample (n =378), with relative risks reported from Poisson regression on demographic data for the subsample (n = 309).

b Adjusted for duration of case ascertainment in each early intervention service (18 months).

c Adjusted for other variables in model (age group, gender and ethnicity).

We also reported elevated psychosis risk for some minority groups in East Anglia, although not, even at the upper limit of the confidence interval, to the extent observed in more urban settings. Reference Cantor-Graae and Selten3 Strikingly, relative risk estimates in people from Asian populations were half those observed in the White British group. Although we cannot exclude the possibility that these differences were explained by differential service utilisation, our findings are consistent with the possibility that migrant and minority groups in more rural communities may not be exposed to the same degree to the factors that drive elevated psychosis rates in cities. This hypothesis will be pursued in the full dataset, but there is already supporting evidence: cumulative social disadvantage and separation and loss events in childhood are reported to be associated with increased odds of psychosis for both White British and ethnic minority groups but the impact of such events appears to be more pervasive among some minority groups. Reference Morgan, Kirkbride, Hutchinson, Craig, Morgan and Dazzan9,Reference Morgan, Kirkbride, Leff, Hutchinson, McKenzie and Morgan10 If socioenvironmental exposures were also amplified in urban compared with rural populations, or led to greater stress responses in urban dwellers, as has been recently observed in a small sample of healthy adults, Reference Lederbogen, Kirsch, Haddad, Streit, Tost and Schuch11 this could potentially explain the attenuation in elevated rates among rural minority populations.

Our initial data suggested that incidence rates were elevated in one of our services, and we will consider multivariate, multilevel explanations for this in our final data-set, including the possibility that the variation may be partially driven by service-side factors, such as the degree of active outreach provided by different services and the length of time services have been established. We will also be able to inspect differences in rates according to diagnostic subgroup and demographic factors not reported here (including country of birth, age at migration, generation status, occupation), compare clinical- and research-based diagnoses, and inspect the evolution of symptomatology in a first-episode sample over 3 years of treatment. Nevertheless, the incepted incidence rates assessed here through clinical early intervention services highlight a substantial burden of psychotic disorder beyond cities, and potentially provide important aetiological clues.

Funding

J.B.K. was supported by a Sir Henry Wellcome Research Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (grant number ), through which the SEPEA study was established. P.B.J. directs the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and is supported by NIHR grant . The SEPEA study has been adopted by the Mental Health Research Network (MHRN).

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the clinical services and staff participating in the SEPEA study, and the MHRN for their generous support.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

None.

References

1 Kirkbride, JB, Fearon, P, Morgan, C, Dazzan, P, Morgan, K, Tarrant, J, et al. Heterogeneity in incidence rates of schizophrenia and other psychotic syndromes: findings from the 3-center ÆSOP Study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006; 63: 250–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Moore, THM, Zammit, S, Lingford-Hughes, A, Barnes, TRE, Jones, PB, Burke, M, et al. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet 2007; 370: 319–28.Google ScholarPubMed
3 Cantor-Graae, E, Selten, J-P. Schizophrenia and migration: a meta-analysis and review. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 1224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 March, D, Hatch, SL, Morgan, C, Kirkbride, JB, Bresnahan, M, Fearon, P, et al. Psychosis and place. Epidemiol Rev 2008; 30: 84100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Statistical Digest of Rural England 2011. DEFRA, 2011.Google Scholar
6 Department of Health. Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide. National Health Service, 2001.Google Scholar
7 Cheng, F, Kirkbride, JB, Lennox, BR, Perez, J, Masson, K, Lawrence, K, et al. Administrative incidence of psychosis assessed in an early intervention service in England: first epidemiological evidence from a diverse, rural and urban setting. Psychol Med 2011; 41: 949–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Grigoriadis, S, Seeman, MV. The role of estrogen in schizophrenia: implications for schizophrenia practice guidelines for women. Can J Psychiatry 2002; 47: 437–42.Google ScholarPubMed
9 Morgan, C, Kirkbride, J, Hutchinson, G, Craig, T, Morgan, K, Dazzan, P, et al. Cumulative social disadvantage, ethnicity and first-episode psychosis: a case-control study. Psychol Med 2008; 38: 1701–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10 Morgan, C, Kirkbride, JB, Leff, J, Hutchinson, G, McKenzie, K, Morgan, K, et al. Parental separation, loss and psychosis in different ethnic groups: a case-control study. Psychol Med 2007; 37: 495503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Lederbogen, F, Kirsch, P, Haddad, L, Streit, F, Tost, H, Schuch, P, et al. City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans. Nature 2011; 474: 498501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

TABLE 1 Sample characteristics and adjusted rate ratios in the SEPEA study at 18 monthsa

Supplementary material: PDF

Kirkbride et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Kirkbride et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 46 KB
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
You have Access
Open access
18
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Psychosis incidence through the prism of early intervention services
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Psychosis incidence through the prism of early intervention services
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Psychosis incidence through the prism of early intervention services
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *