Unsystematic review shows neither that early intervention in psychosis is cost-effective nor cost-minimising
Amos, Andrew (2019) Unsystematic review shows neither that early intervention in psychosis is cost-effective nor cost-minimising. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 215 (6). p. 744.
![[img]](https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png) |
PDF (Published Version)
- Published Version
Restricted to Repository staff only |
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.2019.223
View at Publisher Website: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.223
1
2
Abstract
[Extract] Aceituno et al’s systematic review of economic evaluations of early intervention in psychosis (EIP)1 is an example of the use of spin to misrepresent advantages of EIP, a topic reviewed elsewhere.2 Although it refers to standard protocols for systematic reviews, it does not critically analyse the collected articles, leading to wildly optimistic conclusions.
| Item ID: | 61645 |
|---|---|
| Item Type: | Article (Commentary) |
| ISSN: | 1472-1465 |
| Copyright Information: | © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2019 |
| Date Deposited: | 06 Apr 2020 04:26 |
| FoR Codes: | 17 PSYCHOLOGY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCES > 1799 Other Psychology and Cognitive Sciences > 179999 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences not elsewhere classified @ 100% |
| SEO Codes: | 92 HEALTH > 9204 Public Health (excl. Specific Population Health) > 920410 Mental Health @ 100% |
| Downloads: |
Total: 2 |
| More Statistics |
Actions (Repository Staff Only)
 |
Item Control Page |