Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) exposed to coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) are at high risk of developing mental health concerns across several domains. The aim of this study is to determine the updated, global frequency of these outcomes.Methods: A multistep literature search was performed from database inception until March 1, 2021. PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review and PROSPERO protocol were used to identify studies reporting on depression, anxiety, acute stress, post-traumatic symptoms, insomnia, and burnout in HCWs exposed to COVID-19. A quantitative meta-analysis with random effects was conducted to analyze the proportion rate of the mental health disorders. Sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the effect of the different continents and scales. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to examine the effect of gender, age, and work position.Results: 239 articles were included (n = 271,319 HCWs, mean age = 36.08 ± 8.33 (66.99% female). 33% HCWs exposed to COVID-19 reported depressive symptoms (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 28–38%), 42% anxiety features (95% CI = 35–48), 40% acute stress (95% CI = 32–47), 32% post-traumatic symptoms (95% CI = 26–37%), 42% insomnia (95% CI = 36–48), 37% burnout (95% CI = 31–42). Sensitivity analyses did not show statistically significant differences. Meta-regressions found a statistically significant lower prevalence of post-traumatic symptoms in Asia.Conclusions: HCWs exposed to COVID-19 were found to have a significant prevalence of mental health concerns in all domains analyzed. The effects of COVID-19 on HCWs’ mental health could be underestimated and the future consequences dismissed.

Background: To determine the proportion of patients in symptomatic remission and recovery following a first-episode of psychosis (FEP). Methods: A multistep literature search using the Web of Science database, Cochrane Central Register of Reviews, Ovid/PsychINFO, and trial registries from database inception to November 5, 2020, was performed. Cohort studies and randomized control trials (RCT) investigating the proportion of remission and recovery following a FEP were included. Two independent researchers searched, following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines and using a PROSPERO protocol. We performed meta-analyses regarding the proportion of remission/recovery (symptomatic plus functional outcomes). Heterogeneity was measured employing Q statistics and I² test. To identify potential predictors, meta-regression analyses were conducted, as well as qualitative reporting of studies included in a systematic review. Sensitivity analyses were performed regarding different times of follow-up and type of studies. Results: One hundred articles (82 cohorts and 18 RCTs) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled proportion of symptomatic remission was 54% (95%CI [30, 49–58]) over a mean follow-up period of 43.57 months (SD = 51.82) in 76 studies. After excluding RCT from the sample, the proportion of remission remained similar (55%). The pooled proportion of recovery was 32% (95%CI [27–36]) over a mean follow-up period of 71.85 months (SD = 73.54) in 40 studies. After excluding RCT from the sample, the recovery proportion remained the same. No significant effect of any sociodemographic or clinical predictor was found. Conclusions: Half of the patients are in symptomatic remission around 4 years after the FEP, while about a third show recovery after 5.5 years.

The role of duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) as an early detection and intervention target to improve outcomes for individuals with first-episode psychosis is unknown. PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review to identify studies until February 1, 2023, with an intervention and a control group, reporting DUP in both groups. Random effects meta-analysis to evaluate (1) differences in DUP in early detection/intervention services vs the control group, (2) the efficacy of early detection strategies regarding eight real-world outcomes at baseline (service entry), and (3) the efficacy of early intervention strategies on ten real-world outcomes at follow-up. We conducted quality assessment, heterogeneity, publication bias, and meta-regression analyses (PROSPERO: CRD42020163640). From 6229 citations, 33 intervention studies were retrieved. The intervention group achieved a small DUP reduction (Hedges’ g = 0.168, 95% CI = 0.055–0.283) vs the control group. The early detection group had better functioning levels (g = 0.281, 95% CI = 0.073–0.488) at baseline. Both groups did not differ regarding total psychopathology, admission rates, quality of life, positive/negative/depressive symptoms, and employment rates (P > .05). Early interventions improved quality of life (g = 0.600, 95% CI = 0.408–0.791), employment rates (g = 0.427, 95% CI = 0.135–0.718), negative symptoms (g = 0.417, 95% CI = 0.153–0.682), relapse rates (g = 0.364, 95% CI = 0.117–0.612), admissions rates (g = 0.335, 95% CI = 0.198–0.468), total psychopathology (g = 0.298, 95% CI = 0.014–0.582), depressive symptoms (g = 0.268, 95% CI = 0.008–0.528), and functioning (g = 0.180, 95% CI = 0.065–0.295) at follow-up but not positive symptoms or remission (P > .05). Comparing interventions targeting DUP and control groups, the impact of early detection strategies on DUP and other correlates is limited. However, the impact of early intervention was significant regarding relevant outcomes, underscoring the importance of supporting early intervention services worldwide.

Neurocognitive deficits are a core feature of psychotic disorders, but it is unclear whether they affect all individuals uniformly. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize the evidence on the magnitude, progression, and variability of neurocognitive functioning in individuals with first-episode psychosis (FEP). A multistep literature search was conducted in several databases up to November 1, 2022. Original studies reporting on neurocognitive functioning in FEP were included. The researchers extracted the data and clustered the neurocognitive tasks according to the seven Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia (MATRICS) domains and six additional domains. Random-effect model meta-analyses, assessment of publication biases and study quality, and meta-regressions were conducted. The primary effect size reported was Hedges g of (1) neurocognitive functioning in individuals at FEP measuring differences with healthy control (HC) individuals or (2) evolution of neurocognitive impairment across study follow-up intervals. Of 30,384 studies screened, 54 were included, comprising 3,925 FEP individuals and 1,285 HC individuals. Variability analyses indicated greater variability in FEP compared to HC at baseline and follow-up. We found better neurocognitive performance in the HC group at baseline and follow-up but no differences in longitudinal neurocognitive changes between groups. Across the 13 domains, individuals with FEP showed improvement from baseline in all studied domains, except for visual memory. Metaregressions showed some differences in several of the studied domains. The findings suggest that individuals with FEP have marked cognitive impairment, but there is greater variability in cognitive functioning in patients than in HC. This suggests that subgroups of individuals suffer severe disease-related cognitive impairments, whereas others may be much less affected. While these impairments seem stable in the medium term, certain indicators may suggest potential further decline in the long term for a specific subgroup of individuals, although more research is needed to clarify this. Overall, this study highlights the need for tailored neurocognitive interventions for individuals with FEP based on their specific deficits and progression.

Little is known about clinical outcomes other than transition to psychosis in people at Clinical High-Risk for psychosis (CHR-P). Our aim was to comprehensively meta-analytically evaluate for the first time a wide range of clinical and functional outcomes beyond transition to psychosis in CHR-P individuals. PubMed and Web of Science were searched until November 2020 in this PRISMA compliant meta-analysis (PROSPERO:CRD42020206271). Individual longitudinal studies conducted in individuals at CHR-P providing data on at least one of our outcomes of interest were included. We carried out random-effects pairwise meta-analyses, meta-regressions, and assessed publication bias and study quality. Analyses were two-tailed with α=0.05. 75 prospective studies were included (n=5,288, age=20.0 years, females=44.5%). Attenuated positive symptoms improved at 12 (Hedges’ g=0.753, 95%CI=0.495-1.012) and 24 (Hedges’ g=0.836, 95%CI=0.463-1.209), but not ≥36 months (Hedges’ g=0.315. 95%CI=-0.176–0.806). Negative symptoms improved at 12 (Hedges’ g=0.496, 95%CI=0.315–0.678), but not 24 (Hedges’ g=0.499, 95%CI=-0.137–1.134) or ≥36 months (Hedges’ g=0.033, 95%CI=-0.439–0.505). Depressive symptoms improved at 12 (Hedges’ g=0.611, 95%CI=0.441–0.782) and 24 (Hedges’ g=0.583, 95%CI=0.364–0.803), but not ≥36 months (Hedges’ g=0.512 95%CI=-0.337–1.361). Functioning improved at 12 (Hedges’ g=0.711, 95%CI=0.488–0.934), 24 (Hedges’ g=0.930, 95%CI=0.553–1.306) and ≥36 months (Hedges’ g=0.392, 95%CI=0.117–0.667). Remission from CHR-P status occurred in 33.4% (95%CI=22.6–44.1%) at 12 months, 41.4% (95%CI=32.3–50.5%) at 24 months and 42.4% (95%CI=23.4–61.3%) at ≥36 months. Heterogeneity across the included studies was significant and ranged from I²=53.6% to I²=96.9%. The quality of the included studies (mean±SD) was 4.6±1.1 (range=2-8). CHR-P individuals improve on symptomatic and functional outcomes over time, but these improvements are not maintained in the longer term, and less than half fully remit. Prolonged duration of care may be needed for this patient population to optimize outcomes. None.

Background: Early-onset psychosis (EOP) refers to the development of a first episode of psychosis before 18 years of age. Individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) include adolescents and young adults, although most evidence has focused on adults. Negative symptoms are important prognostic indicators in psychosis. However, research focusing on children and adolescents is limited.Aims: To provide meta-analytical evidence and a comprehensive review of the status and advances in the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of negative symptoms in children and adolescents with EOP and at CHR-P.Method: PRISMA/MOOSE-compliant systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42022360925) from inception to 18 August 2022, in any language, to identify individual studies conducted in EOP/CHR-P children and adolescents (mean age <18 years) providing findings on negative symptoms. Findings were systematically appraised. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on the prevalence of negative symptoms, carrying out sensitivity analyses, heterogeneity analyses, publication bias assessment and quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.Results: Of 3289 articles, 133 were included (n = 6776 EOP, mean age 15.3 years (s.d. = 1.6), males = 56.1%; n = 2138 CHR-P, mean age 16.1 years (s.d. = 1.0), males = 48.6%). There were negative symptoms in 60.8% (95% CI 46.4%–75.2%) of the children and adolescents with EOP and 79.6% (95% CI 66.3–92.9%) of those at CHR-P. Prevalence and severity of negative symptoms were associated with poor clinical, functional and intervention outcomes in both groups. Different interventions were piloted, with variable results requiring further replication.Conclusions: Negative symptoms are common in children and adolescents at early stages of psychosis, particularly in those at CHR-P, and are associated with poor outcomes. Future intervention research is required so that evidence-based treatments will become available.