OBJECTIVE: The authors examined treatment utilization and outcomes over 2 years among patients admitted to emergency departments with early-phase primary or substance-induced psychosis. The main hypothesis was that patients with substance-induced psychosis would have a more benign course of illness than those with primary psychosis METHOD: Using a prospective naturalistic cohort study design, the authors compared 217 patients with early-phase primary psychosis plus substance use and 134 patients with early-phase substance-induced psychosis who presented to psychiatric emergency departments at hospitals in Upper Manhattan. Assessments at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months included psychiatric diagnoses, service use, and institutional outcomes using the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders; psychiatric symptoms using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale; social, vocational, and family functioning using the World Health Organization Psychiatric Disability Assessment Schedule; and life satisfaction using the Quality of Life Interview. Longitudinal analyses were conducted using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Participants with primary psychosis were more likely to receive antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medications, undergo hospitalizations, and have outpatient psychiatric visits; those with substance-induced psychosis were more likely to receive addiction treatments. Only a minority of each group received minimally adequate treatments. Both groups improved significantly over time on substance dependence, psychotic symptoms, homelessness, and psychosocial outcomes, and few group-by-time interactions emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting to Upper Manhattan emergency departments with either early-phase primary psychosis or substance-induced psychosis improved steadily over 2 years despite minimal use of mental health and substance abuse services.
OBJECTIVE: The authors examined treatment utilization and outcomes over 2 years among patients admitted to emergency departments with early-phase primary or substance-induced psychosis. The main hypothesis was that patients with substance-induced psychosis would have a more benign course of illness than those with primary psychosis METHOD: Using a prospective naturalistic cohort study design, the authors compared 217 patients with early-phase primary psychosis plus substance use and 134 patients with early-phase substance-induced psychosis who presented to psychiatric emergency departments at hospitals in Upper Manhattan. Assessments at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months included psychiatric diagnoses, service use, and institutional outcomes using the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders; psychiatric symptoms using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale; social, vocational, and family functioning using the World Health Organization Psychiatric Disability Assessment Schedule; and life satisfaction using the Quality of Life Interview. Longitudinal analyses were conducted using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS:Participants with primary psychosis were more likely to receive antipsychotic and mood-stabilizing medications, undergo hospitalizations, and have outpatientpsychiatric visits; those with substance-induced psychosis were more likely to receive addiction treatments. Only a minority of each group received minimally adequate treatments. Both groups improved significantly over time on substance dependence, psychotic symptoms, homelessness, and psychosocial outcomes, and few group-by-time interactions emerged. CONCLUSIONS:Patients presenting to Upper Manhattan emergency departments with either early-phase primary psychosis or substance-induced psychosis improved steadily over 2 years despite minimal use of mental health and substance abuse services.
Authors: Jeffrey A Lieberman; Michael Phillips; Hongbin Gu; Scott Stroup; Peiyan Zhang; Lan Kong; Zhongfu Ji; Gary Koch; Robert M Hamer Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2003-03-26 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: E J Bromet; J E Schwartz; S Fennig; L Geller; L Jandorf; B Kovasznay; J Lavelle; A Miller; C Pato; R Ram Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 1992 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: M Tohen; S M Strakowski; C Zarate; J Hennen; A L Stoll; T Suppes; G L Faedda; B M Cohen; P Gebre-Medhin; R J Baldessarini Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2000-09-15 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Carol L M Caton; Robert E Drake; Deborah S Hasin; Boanerges Dominguez; Patrick E Shrout; Sharon Samet; Bella Schanzer; W Bella Schanzer Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-02
Authors: Cécile Henquet; Lydia Krabbendam; Janneke Spauwen; Charles Kaplan; Roselind Lieb; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen; Jim van Os Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-12-01
Authors: Diana O Perkins; Jacqueline L Johnson; Robert M Hamer; Robert B Zipursky; Richard S Keefe; Franca Centorrhino; Alan I Green; Ira B Glick; Rene S Kahn; Tonmoy Sharma; Mauricio Tohen; Joseph P McEvoy; Peter J Weiden; Jeffrey A Lieberman Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2006-03-09 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Deborah S Hasin; Dvora Shmulewitz; Malka Stohl; Eliana Greenstein; Christina Aivadyan; Kara Morita; Tulshi Saha; Efrat Aharonovich; Jeesun Jung; Haitao Zhang; Edward V Nunes; Bridget F Grant Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Robert E Drake; Alison E Luciano; Kim T Mueser; Nancy H Covell; Susan M Essock; Haiyi Xie; Gregory J McHugo Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2015-08-19 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Deborah S Hasin; Eliana Greenstein; Christina Aivadyan; Malki Stohl; Efrat Aharonovich; Tulshi Saha; Rise Goldstein; Edward V Nunes; Jeesun Jung; Haitao Zhang; Bridget F Grant Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 4.492