Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Long-Term Follow-Up of the TIPS Early Detection in Psychosis Study: Effects on 10-Year Outcome

Hegelstad, Wenche ten Velden, Larsen, Tor K., Auestad, Bjørn, Evensen, Julie, Haahr, Ulrik, Joa, Inge, Johannesen, Jan O., Langeveld, Johannes, Melle, Ingrid, Opjordsmoen, Stein, Rossberg, Jan Ivar, Rund, Bjørn Rishovd, Simonsen, Erik, Sundet, Kjetil, Vaglum, Per, Friis, Svein, McGlashan, Thomas·2012·American Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Early detection in first-episode psychosis confers advantages for negative, cognitive, and depressive symptoms after 1, 2, and 5 years, but longitudinal effects are unknown. The authors investigated the differences in symptoms and recovery after 10 years between regional health care sectors with and without a comprehensive program for the early detection of psychosis. METHOD: The authors evaluated 281 patients (early detection, N=141) 18 to 65 years old with a first episode of nonaffective psychosis between 1997 and 2001. Of these, 101 patients in the early-detection area and 73 patients in the usual-detection area were followed up at 10 years, and the authors compared their symptoms and recovery. RESULTS: A significantly higher percentage of early-detection patients had recovered at the 10-year follow-up relative to usual-detection patients. This held true despite more severely ill patients dropping out of the study in the usual-detection area. Except for higher levels of excitative symptoms in the early-detection area, there were no symptom differences between the groups. Early-detection recovery rates were higher largely because of higher employment rates for patients in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Early detection of first-episode psychosis appears to increase the chances of milder deficits and superior functioning. The mechanisms by which this strategy improves the long-term prognosis of psychosis remain speculative. Nevertheless, our findings over 10 years may indicate that a prognostic link exists between the timing of intervention and outcome that deserves additional study.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11030459

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Hegelstad, W. T. V., Larsen, T. K., Auestad, B., Evensen, J., Haahr, U., Joa, I., Johannesen, J. O., Langeveld, J., Melle, I., Opjordsmoen, S., Rossberg, J. I., Rund, B. R., Simonsen, E., Sundet, K., Vaglum, P., Friis, S., & McGlashan, T.
Venue
American Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2012-04
Volume
169
Issue
4
Pages
374-380
ISSN
  • 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-7228
OpenAlex
W2160738158
Cited by
309
References
33
FWCI
14.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long-Term Follow-Up of the TIPS Early Detection in Psychosis Study: Effects on 10-Year Outcome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11030459
The paper
Hegelstad, W. T. V., Larsen, T. K., Auestad, B., Evensen, J., Haahr, U., Joa, I., Johannesen, J. O., Langeveld, J., Melle, I., Opjordsmoen, S., Rossberg, J. I., Rund, B. R., Simonsen, E., Sundet, K., Vaglum, P., Friis, S., & McGlashan, T. (2012). Long-Term Follow-Up of the TIPS Early Detection in Psychosis Study: Effects on 10-Year Outcome. American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11030459

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.