Real-world examination of the rates of long-acting injectable attrition in a cohort of early psychosis patients after discharge from an early intervention service for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients treated in early intervention for psychosis programs have better treatment outcomes and higher rates of long-acting injection (LAI) antipsychotic medication utilization (20%-50%) versus treatment as usual. These programs usually serve patients for 2-3 years, then most patients are discharged to other mental health services and studies of patients with longer-standing schizophrenia suggest switching to oral medications may be common. However, following patients post-discharge is complicated by the challenges of migrated patient records across clinical services and providers. Objectives: To examine whether LAI use continues after discharge from an early intervention service for psychosis. Design: This study was a retrospective cohort study examining the effects of continuation or discontinuation of LAI therapy in individuals who have completed treatment in an early intervention service (EIS) for psychosis. Methods: A retrospective cohort was created from a group of individuals discharged from EIS for psychosis over a 3-year period from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018 and followed for mental health outcomes and antipsychotic medications prescribed for a subsequent 2-year period at discharge, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-discharge. Results: Of 85 subjects discharged from three sites in three different provinces in Canada for whom full follow-up could be recorded, 60 subjects remained on LAI medications after 24 months (71%). The average age of the cohort was 22 years (SD 4.7) at admission to an EIS. At discharge, the most commonly used LAI was aripiprazole, and most subjects were maintained on the same formulation at 24 months, if still on LAI. Reasons for discontinuation were predominantly patient preference. Significant differences in clinical outcomes, measured through reduced rehospitalization were seen for those who remained on LAI as compared to those who did not. Conclusion: LAI adherence is still strong 24 months after discharge from an EIS for psychosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".