Psychotic disorders are highly heritable, yet the evidence is less clear for subclinical psychosis expression, such as psychotic experiences (PEs). We examined if PEs in parents were associated with PEs in offspring.

As part of the Danish general population Lolland-Falster Health Study, families with youths aged 11–17 years were included. Both children and parents reported PEs according to the Psychotic Like Experiences Questionnaire, counting only ‘definite’ PEs. Parents additionally reported depressive symptoms, anxiety, and mental wellbeing. The associations between parental and child PEs were estimated using generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for the clustering of observations within families, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.

Altogether, 984 youths (mean age 14.3 years [s.d. 2.0]), 700 mothers, and 496 fathers from 766 households completed PEs-questionnaires. Offspring of parents with PEs were at an increased risk of reporting PEs themselves (mothers: adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.42, 95% CI 1.73–3.38; fathers: aRR 2.25, 95% CI 1.42–3.59). Other maternal problems (depression, anxiety, and poor mental well-being), but not paternal problems, were also associated with offspring PEs. In multivariate models adjusting for parental problems, PEs, but not other parental problems, were robustly associated with offspring PEs (mothers: aRR 2.25, 95% CI 1.60–3.19; fathers: aRR 2.44, 95% CI 1.50–3.96).

The current findings add novel evidence suggesting that specific psychosis vulnerability in families is expressed at the lower end of the psychosis continuum, underlining the importance of assessing youths’ needs based on psychosis vulnerability broadly within the family systems.

Information about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment.

An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken.

The mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70% of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80%.

The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.