Only a small proportion of patients with first episode psychosis come via prodromal services: a retrospective survey of a large UK mental health programme

Table 2 Comparisons in clinical presentation characteristics and pathways to care between FEP-C (control) and PROD (prodrome) groups

Clinical presentation and pathways to care	FEP-C (n = 283; 83.7%)	PROD (n = 14; 4.1%)	Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	Adjusted^a OR (95% CI)
	Median (IQR)/n(%)	Median (IQR)/n(%)
DUP, d	86 (13–368)	19 (6–40)	0.99 (0.96–1.00)	0.99 (0.96–1.00)
Source of referral
General Practitioner	67 (24.4)	6 (46.2)	2.64 (0.71–9.53)	2.82 (0.75–10.34)
Emergency services	124 (45.3)	2 (15.4)	0.22 (0.02–1.04)	0.19* (0.02–0.91)
Health & social worker	34 (12.4)	4 (30.8)	0.38 (0.01–2.71)	0.43 (0.01–3.10)
Criminal justice agency	49 (17.9)	1 (7.7)	3.12 (0.66–11.96)	3.23 (0.68–12.68)
Mode of onset
Acute	121 (43.7)	3 (27.3)	0.48 (0.08–2.07)	0.42 (0.07–1.85)
Gradual	56 (20.2)	-	0.26 (0.00–1.63)	0.28 (0.00–1.80)
Insidious	100 (36.1)	8 (72.7)	4.69* (1.10–28.09)	5.17* (1.18–31.51)

DUP duration of untreated psychosis, GP general practitioner, IQR 25th and 75th Percentiles range, S.D. standard deviation, df degree of freedom, d days, CI confidence intervals, FEP-C (control) group FEP patients who present to mental health services for FEP without prior contact with the prodromal services, PROD (prodrome) group FEP patients who had first presented to the prodromal services with the ARMS and who, by definition, subsequently transitioned to FEP
*p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
^aAdjusted for age at the first contact with mental health services

ISSN: 1471-244X