Alison R Yung1,2,3, Stephen J Wood2,3,4, Ashok Malla5, Barnaby Nelson2,3, Patrick McGorry2,3, Jai Shah5. 1. School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 2. Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Orygen, The National Centre for Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia. 4. School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Douglas Research Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the 1990s criteria were developed to detect individuals at high and imminent risk of developing a psychotic disorder. These are known as the at risk mental state, ultra high risk or clinical high risk criteria. Individuals meeting these criteria are symptomatic and help-seeking. Services for such individuals are now found worldwide. Recently Psychological Medicine published two articles that criticise these services and suggest that they should be dismantled or restructured. One paper also provides recommendations on how ARMS services should be operate. METHODS: In this paper we draw on the existing literature in the field and present the perspective of some ARMS clinicians and researchers. RESULTS: Many of the critics' arguments are refuted. Most of the recommendations included in the Moritz et al. paper are already occurring. CONCLUSIONS: ARMS services provide management of current problems, treatment to reduce risk of onset of psychotic disorder and monitoring of mental state, including attenuated psychotic symptoms. These symptoms are associated with a range of poor outcomes. It is important to assess them and track their trajectory over time. A new approach to detection of ARMS individuals can be considered that harnesses broad youth mental health services, such as headspace in Australia, Jigsaw in Ireland and ACCESS Open Minds in Canada. Attention should also be paid to the physical health of ARMS individuals. Far from needing to be dismantled we feel that the ARMS approach has much to offer to improve the health of young people.
BACKGROUND: In the 1990s criteria were developed to detect individuals at high and imminent risk of developing a psychotic disorder. These are known as the at risk mental state, ultra high risk or clinical high risk criteria. Individuals meeting these criteria are symptomatic and help-seeking. Services for such individuals are now found worldwide. Recently Psychological Medicine published two articles that criticise these services and suggest that they should be dismantled or restructured. One paper also provides recommendations on how ARMS services should be operate. METHODS: In this paper we draw on the existing literature in the field and present the perspective of some ARMS clinicians and researchers. RESULTS: Many of the critics' arguments are refuted. Most of the recommendations included in the Moritz et al. paper are already occurring. CONCLUSIONS: ARMS services provide management of current problems, treatment to reduce risk of onset of psychotic disorder and monitoring of mental state, including attenuated psychotic symptoms. These symptoms are associated with a range of poor outcomes. It is important to assess them and track their trajectory over time. A new approach to detection of ARMS individuals can be considered that harnesses broad youth mental health services, such as headspace in Australia, Jigsaw in Ireland and ACCESS Open Minds in Canada. Attention should also be paid to the physical health of ARMS individuals. Far from needing to be dismantled we feel that the ARMS approach has much to offer to improve the health of young people.
Entities:
Keywords:
At risk mental state; clinical high risk; prodromal; psychosis; schizophrenia; ultra high risk
Authors: Patrick D McGorry; Sherilyn D Goldstone; Alexandra G Parker; Debra J Rickwood; Ian B Hickie Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Patrick D McGorry; Ian B Hickie; Alison R Yung; Christos Pantelis; Henry J Jackson Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Ilaria Bonoldi; Alison R Yung; Stefan Borgwardt; Matthew J Kempton; Lucia Valmaggia; Francesco Barale; Edgardo Caverzasi; Philip McGuire Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2012-03
Authors: Anthony P Morrison; Paul French; Lara Walford; Shôn W Lewis; Aoiffe Kilcommons; Joanne Green; Sophie Parker; Richard P Bentall Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Cathy Davies; Joaquim Radua; Andrea Cipriani; Daniel Stahl; Umberto Provenzani; Philip McGuire; Paolo Fusar-Poli Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Matthew R Broome; James B Woolley; Louise C Johns; Lucia R Valmaggia; Paul Tabraham; Rafael Gafoor; Elvira Bramon; Philip K McGuire Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.361
Authors: Sinan Guloksuz; Lotta-Katrin Pries; Margreet Ten Have; Ron de Graaf; Saskia van Dorsselaer; Boris Klingenberg; Maarten Bak; Bochao D Lin; Kristel R van Eijk; Philippe Delespaul; Therese van Amelsvoort; Jurjen J Luykx; Bart P F Rutten; Jim van Os Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Paolo Fusar-Poli; Christoph U Correll; Celso Arango; Michael Berk; Vikram Patel; John P A Ioannidis Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 79.683