Social anxiety (SA), a prevalent comorbid condition in psychotic disorders with a negative impact on functioning, requires adequate intervention relatively early. Using a randomized controlled trial, we tested the efficacy of a group cognitive-behavioral therapy intervention for SA (CBT-SA) that we developed for youth who experienced the first episode of psychosis (FEP). For our primary outcome, we hypothesized that compared to the active control of group cognitive remediation (CR), the CBT-SA group would show a reduction in SA that would be maintained at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. For secondary outcomes, it was hypothesized that the CBT-SA group would show a reduction of positive and negative symptoms and improvements in recovery and functioning.

Ninety-six patients with an FEP and SA, recruited from five different FEP programs in the Montreal area, were randomized to 13 weekly group sessions of either CBT-SA or CR intervention.

Linear mixed models revealed that multiple measures of SA significantly reduced over time, but with no significant group differences. Positive and negative symptoms, as well as functioning improved over time, with negative symptoms and functioning exhibiting a greater reduction in the CBT-SA group.

While SA decreased over time with both interventions, a positive effect of the CBT-SA intervention on measures of negative symptoms, functioning, and self-reported recovery at follow-up suggests that our intervention had a positive effect that extended beyond symptoms specific to SA.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02294409.

Recently, artificial intelligence-powered devices have been put forward as potentially powerful tools for the improvement of mental healthcare. An important question is how these devices impact the physician-patient interaction.

Aifred is an artificial intelligence-powered clinical decision support system (CDSS) for the treatment of major depression. Here, we explore the use of a simulation centre environment in evaluating the usability of Aifred, particularly its impact on the physician–patient interaction.

Twenty psychiatry and family medicine attending staff and residents were recruited to complete a 2.5-h study at a clinical interaction simulation centre with standardised patients. Each physician had the option of using the CDSS to inform their treatment choice in three 10-min clinical scenarios with standardised patients portraying mild, moderate and severe episodes of major depression. Feasibility and acceptability data were collected through self-report questionnaires, scenario observations, interviews and standardised patient feedback.

All 20 participants completed the study. Initial results indicate that the tool was acceptable to clinicians and feasible for use during clinical encounters. Clinicians indicated a willingness to use the tool in real clinical practice, a significant degree of trust in the system's predictions to assist with treatment selection, and reported that the tool helped increase patient understanding of and trust in treatment. The simulation environment allowed for the evaluation of the tool's impact on the physician–patient interaction.

The simulation centre allowed for direct observations of clinician use and impact of the tool on the clinician–patient interaction before clinical studies. It may therefore offer a useful and important environment in the early testing of new technological tools. The present results will inform further tool development and clinician training materials.

It is unknown whether patient disengagement from early intervention services for psychosis is as prevalent in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) like India, as it is in high-income countries (HICs). Addressing this gap, we studied two first-episode psychosis programs in Montreal, Canada and Chennai, India. We hypothesized lower service disengagement among patients and higher engagement among families in Chennai, and that family engagement would mediate cross-site differences in patient disengagement.

Sites were compared on their 2-year patient disengagement and family engagement rates conducting time-to-event analyses and independent samples t tests on monthly contact data. Along with site and family involvement, Cox proportional hazards regression included known predictors of patient disengagement (e.g. gender).

The study included data about 333 patients (165 in Montreal, 168 in Chennai) and their family members (156 in Montreal, 168 in Chennai). More Montreal patients (19%) disengaged before 24 months than Chennai patients (1%), χ2(1, N = 333) = 28.87, p < 0.001. Chennai families had more contact with clinicians throughout treatment (Cohen's d = −1.28). Family contact significantly predicted patient disengagement in Montreal (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.81–0.93). Unlike in Chennai, family contact declined over time in Montreal, with clinicians perceiving such contact as not necessary (Cohen's d = 1.73).

This is the first investigation of early psychosis service engagement across a HIC and an LMIC. Patient and family engagement was strikingly higher in Chennai. Maintaining family contact may benefit patient engagement, irrespective of context. Findings also suggest that differential service utilization may underpin cross-cultural variations in psychosis outcomes.

Purported superior outcomes for treatment of psychosis in low- and middle-income (LMICs) compared with high-income (HICs) countries have not been examined in the context of early intervention services (EIS).

To compare 2-year clinical outcomes in first-episode psychosis (FEP) treated in EIS in Chennai (LMIC) and Montreal (HIC) using a similar EIS treatment protocol and to identify factors associated with any outcome differences.

Patients with FEP treated in EIS in Chennai (n = 168) and Montreal (n = 165) were compared on change in level of symptoms and rate and duration of positive and negative symptom remission over a 2-year period. Repeated-measures analysis of variance, and logistic and linear regression analyses were conducted.

Four patients died in Chennai compared with none in Montreal. Family support was higher for Chennai patients (F = 14.05, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.061) and increased over time at both sites (F = 7.0, d.f. = 1.915, P < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.03). Negative symptom outcomes were significantly better in Chennai for level of symptoms (time × site interaction F = 7.36, d.f. = 1.49, P = 0.002, ƞp2 = 0.03), duration of remission (mean 16.1 v. 9.78 months, t = −7.35, d.f. = 331, P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.80) and the proportion of patients in remission (81.5% v. 60.3%, χ2 = 16.12, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001). The site differences in outcome remained robust after adjusting for inter-site differences in other characteristics. Early remission and family support facilitated better outcome on negative symptoms. No significant differences were observed in positive symptom outcomes.

Patients with FEP treated in EIS in LMIC contexts are likely to show better outcome on negative symptoms compared with those in HIC contexts. Early remission and family support may benefit patients across both contexts.