Early intervention in psychiatry · 2026
Who Gets FIp? Understanding Contextual Factors in EIP Provision.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ferner Harriet, Parkyn Grace, Onwumere Juliana, Fornells-Ambrojo Miriam
Аннотация
AIMS: Family Intervention for psychosis (FIp) reduces the risk of relapse and improves functioning. However, implementation barriers exist. Being from racially and/or ethnically minoritised groups and experiencing contextual stressors may impact pathways to care and illness progression and prognosis. We aimed to evaluate the delivery of FIp in routine practice in a diverse and deprived inner-city borough. Patterns of engagement with family work and the relationship between ethnicity, social stressors and engagement were explored.
METHODS: Socio-demographic, service user data and verbatim information regarding family intervention in an Early Intervention service over a 12-month period were accessed via electronic patient records.
RESULTS: About 48 (21.7%) out of 221 service users received family intervention over a year. Younger service users were more likely to receive FIp, and ethnicity and gender did not influence referrals. About 96% of service users and/or their carers were experiencing on-going social stressors, of which trauma was associated with a longer duration of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Service users and carers from diverse backgrounds in Early Intervention services who are experiencing high levels of stressors can engage in FIp. Further research to better understand ways to facilitate access and engagement for families with complex needs is needed.
METHODS: Socio-demographic, service user data and verbatim information regarding family intervention in an Early Intervention service over a 12-month period were accessed via electronic patient records.
RESULTS: About 48 (21.7%) out of 221 service users received family intervention over a year. Younger service users were more likely to receive FIp, and ethnicity and gender did not influence referrals. About 96% of service users and/or their carers were experiencing on-going social stressors, of which trauma was associated with a longer duration of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Service users and carers from diverse backgrounds in Early Intervention services who are experiencing high levels of stressors can engage in FIp. Further research to better understand ways to facilitate access and engagement for families with complex needs is needed.