The Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention in first episode psychosis services: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial and cost-effectiveness evaluation

Kathryn Greenwood (Lead Author), Christopher Jones, Nahel Yaziji, Andrew Healey, Carl May, Stephen Bremner, Richard Hooper, Shanaya Rathod, Peter Phiri, Richard de Visser, Tanya Mackay, Gergely Bartl, Iga Abramowicz, Jenny Gu, Rebecca Webb, Sunil Nandha, Belinda Lennox, Louise Johns, Paul French, Jo HodgekinsHeather Law, James Plaistow, Rose Thompson, David Fowler, Philippa Garety, Anastacia O’Donnell, Michelle Painter, Rebecca Jarvis, Stuart Clark, Emmanuelle Peters

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
26 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services improve outcomes for young people, but approximately 30% disengage.

Aims: To test whether a new motivational engagement intervention would prolong engagement and whether it was cost-effective.

Method: We conducted a multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial involving 20 EIP teams at five UK National Health Service (NHS) sites. Teams were randomised using permuted blocks stratified by NHS trust. Participants were all young people (aged 14–35 years) presenting with a first episode of psychosis between May 2019 and July 2020 (N = 1027). We compared the novel Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention plus standardised EIP (sEIP) with sEIP alone. The primary outcome was time to disengagement over 12–26 months. Economic outcomes were mental health costs, societal costs and socio-occupational outcomes over 12 months. Assessors were masked to treatment allocation for primary disengagement and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. The trial was registered at ISRCTN51629746.

Results: Disengagement was low at 15.9% overall in standardised stand-alone services. The adjusted hazard ratio for EYE-2 + sEIP (n = 652) versus sEIP alone (n = 375) was 1.07 (95% CI 0.76–1.49; P = 0.713). The health economic evaluation indicated lower mental healthcare costs linked to reductions in unplanned mental healthcare with no compromise of clinical outcomes, as well as some evidence for lower societal costs and more days in education, training, employment and stable accommodation in the EYE-2 group.

Conclusions: We found no evidence that EYE-2 increased time to disengagement, but there was some evidence for its cost-effectiveness. This is the largest study to date reporting positive engagement, health and cost outcomes in a total EIP population sample. Limitations included high loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and low completion of societal and socio-occupational data. COVID-19 affected fidelity and implementation. Future engagement research should target engagement to those in greatest need, including in-patients and those with socio-occupational goals.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)144-152
Number of pages9
JournalBritish Journal of Psychiatry
Volume226
Issue number3
Early online date25 Nov 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2025

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • cost-effectiveness
  • Early intervention
  • engagement
  • psychosis
  • randomised controlled trial

Cite this