Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Unsystematic review shows neither that early intervention in psychosis is cost-effective nor cost-minimising

  • Andrew Amos (a1)
  • View HTML
    • 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.

      Unsystematic review shows neither that early intervention in psychosis is cost-effective nor cost-minimising
      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.

      Unsystematic review shows neither that early intervention in psychosis is cost-effective nor cost-minimising
      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.

      Unsystematic review shows neither that early intervention in psychosis is cost-effective nor cost-minimising
      Available formats
      ×

Abstract

  • An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided below. To view the full text please use the links above to select your preferred format.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1Aceituno, D, Vera, N, Prina, M, McCrone, P. Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in psychosis: systematic review. Br J Psych 2019; 215: 388–94.
2Amos, A. A review of spin and bias use in the early intervention in psychosis literature. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 2014; 16: 10.4088/PCC.
3Amos, A. Assessing the cost of early intervention in psychosis: a systematic review. Aus NZ J Psych 2012; 46: 719–34.
4Fusar-Poli, P, McGorry, PD, Kane, JM. Improving outcomes of first-episode psychosis: an overview. World Psychiatry 2017; 16: 251–65.
5Tsiachristas, A, Thomas, T, Leal, J, Lennox, BR. Economic impact of early intervention in psychosis services: results from a longitudinal retrospective controlled study in England. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e012611.

Unsystematic review shows neither that early intervention in psychosis is cost-effective nor cost-minimising

  • Andrew Amos (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Unsystematic review shows neither that early intervention in psychosis is cost-effective nor cost-minimising

  • Andrew Amos (a1)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *