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] PDF (Published Version) - Published Version
Restricted to Repository staff only

View at Publisher Website: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.223
 
1


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: 1
More Statistics

Actions (Repository Staff Only)

Item Control Page Item Control Page