The economic impact of early intervention in psychosis services for children and adolescents
Open accessAbstract
Aims: To develop and populate a plausible model of the impact of early intervention ( EI ) for children and adolescents with psychosis to estimate potential short‐term health‐related cost savings compared to generic Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services ( CAMHS ). Method: A decision‐tree‐based model for EI in CAMHS was developed. The model was populated using data relating to the use of inpatient care and EI service activity for people aged under 18 from an area of N orth E ast E ngland. Data were abstracted from the N ational H ealth S ervice clinical reporting systems for 2001–2008. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine costs associated with the model under differing assumptions. Results: EI delivered cost savings of £4814 per patient compared to care provided by generic CAMHS . Cost savings were predominantly a consequence of reduced length of hospital admissions for patients served by the EI team. The findings were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: These findings suggest that EI services for children and adolescents with psychosis provide potential direct health cost savings comparable to those observed for working‐age adults.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the UK, models and individual patient data analyses have reported cost savings and increased benefits (such as improvements on clinical outcome scales) associated with early intervention in psychosis services.
“In the UK, models and individual patient data analyses have reported cost savings and increased benefits (such as improvements on clinical outcome scales) associated with early intervention in psychosis services.”
From The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health (2024) · cites this paper as [422]
The Results (page unavailable) estimate £4,814 in six-month cost savings from a model of early intervention for children and adolescents, and the Introduction discusses possible wider benefits. The Discussion (page unavailable) explicitly says this study did not assess effectiveness; our copy does not report improvements on clinical outcome scales or identify an individual-patient-data analysis establishing the combined claim. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- Pinfold V, Smith J, Shiers D. Audit of early intervention in psychosis service development in England in 2005 Psychiatr Bull 2007; 31: 7-10.
- Tiffin PA, Glover G. From Commitment to Reality: Early Intervention Services in England. Early Interv Psychiatry 2007; 1: 104-107.
- Tiffin PA, Hudson S. An Early Intervention Service for Adolescents. Early Interv Psychiatry 2007; 1: 212-218.
- McCrone P, Knapp M, Dhanasiri S. Economic impact of services for first-episode psychosis: a decision model approach. Early Interv Psychiatry 2009; 3: 266-73.
- McCrone P, Craig TKJ, Power P, Garety PA. Cost-effectiveness of an early intervention service for people with psychosis. Br J Psychiatry 2010; 196: 377-382.
- Valmaggia LR, McCrone P, Knapp M, Woolley JB, Broome MR, Tabraham P, et al. Economic impact of early intervention in people at high risk of psychosis. Psychol Med 2009; 39: 1617-26.
- Mihalopoulos C, Harris M, Henry L, Harrigan S, McGorry P. Is early intervention in psychosis cost-effective over the long term? Schizophrenia Bull 2009; 35: 909-18.
- Bertelsen M, Jeppesen P, Petersen L, Thorup A, Ohlenschlaeger J, le Quach P, et al. Five-year follow-up of a randomized multicenter trial of intensive early intervention vs standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness: the OPUS trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2008; 65: 762-71.
- Garety PA, Craig TKJ, Dunn G, Fornells-Ambrojo M, Colbert S, Rahaman N, et al. Specialised care for early psychosis: symptoms, social functioning and patient satisfaction: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2006;188:37-45.
- Ballageer T, Malla A, Manchanda R, Takhar J, Haricharan R. Is adolescent-onset first- episode psychosis different from adult onset? J Am Acad of Child Psy 2005; 44: 782-9.
- Mihalopoulos C. Why invest in early psychosis intervention services? Early Interv Psychiatry 2009; 3: 237-8.
- O'Herlihy A, Lelliott P, Bannister D, Cotgrove A, Farr H, Tulloch S. Provision of child and adolescent mental health in-patient services in England between 1999 and 2006. Psychiatr Bull 2007; 31: 454-56.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health
McGorry, P. D., Mei, C., Dalal, N., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., Blakemore, S.-J., Browne, V., Dooley, B., Hickie, I. B., Jones, P. B., McDaid, D., et al. (2024) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00163-9 · Cited by 663 · see citing works
Self-citationEarly intervention for first-episode psychosis: broadening the scope of economic estimates
Park, A., McCrone, P., & Knapp, M. (2016) · Early Intervention in Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/eip.12149 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citationHamilton, M. P., Hetrick, S. E., Mihalopoulos, C., Baker, D., Browne, V., Chanen, A. M., Pennell, K., Purcell, R., Stavely, H., & McGorry, P. D. (2017) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja17.00972 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- McCrone, P., Singh, S. P., Knapp, M., Smith, J., Clark, M., Shiers, D., & Tiffin, P. A.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- University of Warwick (GB)
- London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
- Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust (GB)
- Rethink London UK
- Durham University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Tiffin, Paul A.
- Venue
- Early Intervention in Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-01-24
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 368-373
- ISSN
- 1751-7885 (ISSN-L)
- 1751-7893
- OpenAlex
- W1484746973
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- orcid.org
- Locations
- Early Intervention in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Worcester Research and Publications (University of Worcester) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Keywords
- early intervention, psychosis, children and adolescents, child and adolescent mental health services, health cost savings, hospitalization, decision tree, economic evaluation, hospital costs
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Child, Child Health Services, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Trees, England, Humans, Mental Health Services, Psychotic Disorders, Adolescent Health Services, Health Care Costs, Early Medical Intervention
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
