The impact of precision psychiatry for clinical practice has not been systematically appraised. This study aims to provide a comprehensive review of validated prediction models to estimate the individual risk of being affected with a condition (diagnostic), developing outcomes (prognostic), or responding to treatments (predictive) in mental disorders. PRISMA/RIGHT/CHARMS-compliant systematic review of the Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, and Ovid/PsycINFO databases from inception until July 21, 2019 (PROSPERO CRD42019155713) to identify diagnostic/prognostic/predictive prediction studies that reported individualized estimates in psychiatry and that were internally or externally validated or implemented. Random effect meta-regression analyses addressed the impact of several factors on the accuracy of prediction models. Literature search identified 584 prediction modeling studies, of which 89 were included. 10.4% of the total studies included prediction models internally validated (n = 61), 4.6% models externally validated (n = 27), and 0.2% (n = 1) models considered for implementation. Across validated prediction modeling studies (n = 88), 18.2% were diagnostic, 68.2% prognostic, and 13.6% predictive. The most frequently investigated condition was psychosis (36.4%), and the most frequently employed predictors clinical (69.5%). Unimodal compared to multimodal models (β = .29, P = .03) and diagnostic compared to prognostic (β = .84, p < .0001) and predictive (β = .87, P = .002) models were associated with increased accuracy. To date, several validated prediction models are available to support the diagnosis and prognosis of psychiatric conditions, in particular, psychosis, or to predict treatment response. Advancements of knowledge are limited by the lack of implementation research in real-world clinical practice. A new generation of implementation research is required to address this translational gap.

Introduction: Clinical trials involving patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) continue to try to identify disease‐modifying treatments. Although trials are designed to meet regulatory and registration requirements, many do not measure outcomes of the disease most relevant to key stakeholders.Methods: A systematic review sought research that elicited information from people with AD, their caregivers, and health‐care professionals on which outcomes of the disease were important. Studies published in any language between 2008 and 2017 were included.Results: Participants in 34 studies described 32 outcomes of AD. These included clinical (memory, mental health), practical (ability to undertake activities of daily living, access to health information), and personal (desire for patient autonomy, maintenance of identity) outcomes of the disease.Discussion: Evidence elicited directly from the people most affected by AD reveals a range of disease outcomes that are relevant to them but are not commonly captured in clinical trials of new treatments.

Background: Despite significant research progress surrounding precision medicine in psychiatry, there has been little tangible impact upon real-world clinical care. Objective: To identify barriers and facilitators affecting the real-world implementation of precision psychiatry. Method: A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature search of primary research studies, conducted in the Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO and OpenGrey databases. We included a qualitative data synthesis structured according to the ‘Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research’ (CFIR) key constructs. Results: Of 93,886 records screened, 28 studies were suitable for inclusion. The included studies reported 38 barriers and facilitators attributed to the CFIR constructs. Commonly reported barriers included: potential psychological harm to the service user (n = 11), cost and time investments (n = 9), potential economic and occupational harm to the service user (n = 8), poor accuracy and utility of the model (n = 8), and poor perceived competence in precision medicine amongst staff (n = 7). The most highly reported facilitator was the availability of adequate competence and skills training for staff (n = 7). Conclusions: Psychiatry faces widespread challenges in the implementation of precision medicine methods. Innovative solutions are required at the level of the individual and the wider system to fulfil the translational gap and impact real-world care.

Individuals at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis (CHR-P) demonstrate heterogeneity in clinical profiles and outcome features. However, the extent of neuroanatomical heterogeneity in the CHR-P state is largely undetermined. We aimed to quantify the neuroanatomical heterogeneity in structural magnetic resonance imaging measures of cortical surface area (SA), cortical thickness (CT), subcortical volume (SV), and intracranial volume (ICV) in CHR-P individuals compared with healthy controls (HC), and in relation to subsequent transition to a first episode of psychosis. The ENIGMA CHR-P consortium applied a harmonised analysis to neuroimaging data across 29 international sites, including 1579 CHR-P individuals and 1243 HC, offering the largest pooled CHR-P neuroimaging dataset to date. Regional heterogeneity was indexed with the Variability Ratio (VR) and Coefficient of Variation (CV) ratio applied at the group level. Personalised estimates of heterogeneity of SA, CT and SV brain profiles were indexed with the novel Person-Based Similarity Index (PBSI), with two complementary applications. First, to assess the extent of within-diagnosis similarity or divergence of neuroanatomical profiles between individuals. Second, using a normative modelling approach, to assess the ‘normativeness’ of neuroanatomical profiles in individuals at CHR-P. CHR-P individuals demonstrated no greater regional heterogeneity after applying FDR corrections. However, PBSI scores indicated significantly greater neuroanatomical divergence in global SA, CT and SV profiles in CHR-P individuals compared with HC. Normative PBSI analysis identified 11 CHR-P individuals (0.70%) with marked deviation (>1.5 SD) in SA, 118 (7.47%) in CT and 161 (10.20%) in SV. Psychosis transition was not significantly associated with any measure of heterogeneity. Overall, our examination of neuroanatomical heterogeneity within the CHR-P state indicated greater divergence in neuroanatomical profiles at an individual level, irrespective of psychosis conversion. Further large-scale investigations are required of those who demonstrate marked deviation.

Risk estimation models integrated into Electronic Health Records (EHRs) can deliver innovative approaches in psychiatry, but clinicians' endorsement and their real-world usability are unknown. This study aimed to investigate the real-world feasibility of implementing an individualised, transdiagnostic risk calculator to automatically screen EHRs and detect individuals at-risk for psychosis. Feasibility implementation study encompassing an in-vitro phase (March 2018 to May 2018) and in-vivo phase (May 2018 to April 2019). The in-vitro phase addressed implementation barriers and embedded the risk calculator (predictors: age, gender, ethnicity, index cluster diagnosis, age*gender) into the local EHR. The in-vivo phase investigated the real-world feasibility of screening individuals accessing secondary mental healthcare at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust. The primary outcome was adherence of clinicians to automatic EHR screening, defined by the proportion of clinicians who responded to alerts from the risk calculator, over those contacted. In-vitro phase: implementation barriers were identified/overcome with clinician and service user engagement, and the calculator was successfully integrated into the local EHR through the CogStack platform. In-vivo phase: 3722 individuals were automatically screened and 115 were detected. Clinician adherence was 74% without outreach and 85% with outreach. One-third of clinicians responded to the first email (37.1%) or phone calls (33.7%). Among those detected, cumulative risk of developing psychosis was 12% at six-month follow-up. This is the first implementation study suggesting that combining precision psychiatry and EHR methods to improve detection of individuals with emerging psychosis is feasible. Future psychiatric implementation research is urgently needed.

Background: This work aimed to identify studies of interventions seeking to address mental health inequalities, studies assessing the economic impact of such interventions and factors which act as barriers and those that can facilitate interventions to address inequalities in mental health care. Methods: A systematic mapping method was chosen. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on a population with: (a) mental health disorders, (b) protected or other characteristics putting them at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities; (2) addressed an intervention focused on addressing mental health inequalities; and (3) met criteria for one or more of three research questions: (i) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews reporting effectiveness findings for an intervention or interventions, (ii) studies reporting economic evaluation findings, (iii) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews identifying or describing, potential barriers or facilitators to interventions. A bibliographic search of MEDLINE, HMIC, ASSIA, Social Policy & Practice, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and PsycINFO spanned January 2008 to December 2018. Study selection was performed according to inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated to map studies and summarise published research on mental health inequalities. A visual representation of the mapping review (a mapping diagram) is included. Results: Overall, 128 studies met inclusion criteria: 115 primary studies and 13 systematic reviews. Of those, 94 looked at interventions, 6 at cost-effectiveness and 36 at barriers and facilitators. An existing taxonomy of disparities interventions was used and modified to categorise interventions by type and strategy. Most of the identified interventions focused on addressing socioeconomic factors, race disparities and age-related issues. The most frequently used intervention strategy was providing psychological support. Barriers and associated facilitators were categorised into groups including (not limited to) access to care, communication issues and financial constraints. Conclusions: The mapping review was useful in assessing the spread of literature and identifying highly researched areas versus prominent gaps. The findings are useful for clinicians, commissioners and service providers seeking to understand strategies to support the advancement of mental health equality for different populations and could be used to inform further research and support local decision-making. Systematic review registration: Not applicable.