Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services improve outcomes for young people, but approximately 30% disengage.

To test whether a new motivational engagement intervention would prolong engagement and whether it was cost-effective.

We conducted a multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial involving 20 EIP teams at five UK National Health Service (NHS) sites. Teams were randomised using permuted blocks stratified by NHS trust. Participants were all young people (aged 14–35 years) presenting with a first episode of psychosis between May 2019 and July 2020 (N = 1027). We compared the novel Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention plus standardised EIP (sEIP) with sEIP alone. The primary outcome was time to disengagement over 12–26 months. Economic outcomes were mental health costs, societal costs and socio-occupational outcomes over 12 months. Assessors were masked to treatment allocation for primary disengagement and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. The trial was registered at ISRCTN51629746.

Disengagement was low at 15.9% overall in standardised stand-alone services. The adjusted hazard ratio for EYE-2 + sEIP (n = 652) versus sEIP alone (n = 375) was 1.07 (95% CI 0.76–1.49; P = 0.713). The health economic evaluation indicated lower mental healthcare costs linked to reductions in unplanned mental healthcare with no compromise of clinical outcomes, as well as some evidence for lower societal costs and more days in education, training, employment and stable accommodation in the EYE-2 group.

We found no evidence that EYE-2 increased time to disengagement, but there was some evidence for its cost-effectiveness. This is the largest study to date reporting positive engagement, health and cost outcomes in a total EIP population sample. Limitations included high loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and low completion of societal and socio-occupational data. COVID-19 affected fidelity and implementation. Future engagement research should target engagement to those in greatest need, including in-patients and those with socio-occupational goals.

Historically, patients with multiple acts of aggression, or chronic aggressors, have been studied as one large group. It was our objective to subdivide this group into those patients who engage in physical aggression consistently over multiple years and see if common characteristics of chronic aggressors could classify patients into an aggressive or nonaggressive group.

Within a forensic hospital system, patients who had committed 5 acts of physical aggression, per year, for 3 years (2010 and 2015) were reviewed. Data was collected on clinical and demographic characteristics that have shown to be associated with chronically aggressive patients and compared to nonaggressive matched controls. Data collection and analysis were completed to determine if the variables could classify patients into an aggressive or nonaggressive group.

Analysis showed that 2 variables, the presence of a cognitive disorder and a history of suicidal behaviors were significant in the univariate and multivariate analyses. The 2 variables were able to correctly classify 76.7% of the cases.

A cognitive disorder, a history of suicidal behavior, and increased age were factors associated with this subgroup of aggressive patients. Clinicians may want to explore treatment programs aimed at these clinical factors including cognitive rehabilitation and social cognition treatments, which have been shown to reduce aggression in cognitively impaired populations.