Early-onset psychosis (EOP) refers to the development of a first episode of psychosis before 18 years of age. Individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) include adolescents and young adults, although most evidence has focused on adults. Negative symptoms are important prognostic indicators in psychosis. However, research focusing on children and adolescents is limited.

To provide meta-analytical evidence and a comprehensive review of the status and advances in the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of negative symptoms in children and adolescents with EOP and at CHR-P.

PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42022360925) from inception to 18 August 2022, in any language, to identify individual studies conducted in EOP/CHR-P children and adolescents (mean age <18 years) providing findings on negative symptoms. Findings were systematically appraised. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on the prevalence of negative symptoms, carrying out sensitivity analyses, heterogeneity analyses, publication bias assessment and quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.

Of 3289 articles, 133 were included (n = 6776 EOP, mean age 15.3 years (s.d. = 1.6), males = 56.1%; n = 2138 CHR-P, mean age 16.1 years (s.d. = 1.0), males = 48.6%). There were negative symptoms in 60.8% (95% CI 46.4%–75.2%) of the children and adolescents with EOP and 79.6% (95% CI 66.3–92.9%) of those at CHR-P. Prevalence and severity of negative symptoms were associated with poor clinical, functional and intervention outcomes in both groups. Different interventions were piloted, with variable results requiring further replication.

Negative symptoms are common in children and adolescents at early stages of psychosis, particularly in those at CHR-P, and are associated with poor outcomes. Future intervention research is required so that evidence-based treatments will become available.

Paramedics often are asked to care for patients at the end of life. To do this, they must communicate effectively with family and caregivers, understand their legal obligations, and know when to withhold unwanted interventions. The objectives of this study were to ascertain paramedics' attitudes toward end-of-life (EOL) situations and the frequency with which they encounter them; and to compare paramedics' preparation during training for a variety of EOL care skills.

A written survey was administered to a convenience sample of paramedics in two cities: Denver, Colorado and Los Angeles, California. Questions addressed: (1) attitudes toward EOL decision-making in prehospital settings; (2) experience (number of EOL situations experienced in the past two years); (3) importance of various EOL tasks in clinical practice (pronouncing and communicating death, ending resuscitation, honoring advance directives (ADs)); and (4) self-assessed preparation for these EOL tasks. For each task, importance and preparation were measured using a four-point Likert scale. Proportions were compared using McNemar chi-square statistics to identify areas of under or over-preparation.

Two hundred thirty-six paramedics completed the survey. The mean age was 39 years (range 22–59 years), and 222 (94%) were male. Twenty percent had >20 years of experience. Almost all participants (95%; 95% CI = 91–97%) agreed that prehospital providers should honor field ADs, and more than half (59%; 95% CI = 52–65%) felt that providers should honor verbal wishes to limit resuscitation at the scene. Ninety-eight percent of the participants (95% CI = 96–100%) had questioned whether specific life support interventions were appropriate for patients who appeared to have a terminal disease. Twenty-six percent (95% CI = 20–32%) reported to have used their own judgment during the past two years to withhold or end resuscitation in a patient who appeared to have a terminal disease. Significant discrepancies between the importance in practice and the level of preparation during training for the four EOL situations included: (1) understanding ADs (75% very important vs. 40% well prepared; difference 35%: 95% CI = 26–43%); (2) knowing when to honor written ADs (90% very important vs. 59% well-prepared; difference 31%: 95% CI = 23–38%); and (3) verbal ADs (75% very important vs. 54% well-prepared, difference 21%: 95% CI = 12–29%); and (4) communicating death to family or friends (79% very important vs. 48% well prepared, difference 31%: 95% CI = 23–39%). Paramedics' preparation in EOL skills was significantly lower than that for clinical skills such as endotracheal intubation or defibrillation.

There is a need to include more training in EOL care into prehospital training curricula, including how to verify and apply ADs, when to withhold treatments, and how to discuss death with victims' family or friends.