Potentially severe and persistent or recurrent mental disorders pose the major threat to the health, happiness, and productivity of young people as they emerge from childhood to approach the threshold of adult life. The World Economic Forum has recently revealed that mental disorders now equal cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) as the major threat among noncommunicable diseases to the gross domestic product of modern economies.1 This is due largely to the timing in the life cycle of the onset of mental ill health,2 with 75% of disorders emerging by age 25. Universal or primary prevention is the ultimate solution and must be actively researched and pursued where it works, though it is difficult to assemble solid evidence for this.3 Where primary prevention is still out of reach (and the severe mood and psychotic disorders is one such domain), given we have a range of effective treatment strategies in psychiatry, there are 2 alternative pathways to actively follow.First, we must substantially extend the coverage of current interventions so that the vast majority of people who can benefit from mental health care can gain access. Currently, even in wealthy developed nations, only a minority of people with a mental disorder and a consequent need for care actually receive it, and in developing countries access is minimal and quality of care poor. This is why we need to support the global campaign for mental health.4·5 Second, timing is crucial, and early intervention offers the best hope for disease modification and the reduction of the widespread psychological, social, and economic impacts of treatment delay and poor quality care.6 This strategy is a cornerstone of mainstream health care, in cancer, diabetes, and CVD, yet early intervention or pre-emptive psychiatry7·8 has only recently been extended, deployed, and now widely endorsed within the mental health field. Even so, and somewhat surprisingly, a small yet diverse band of critics have not only questioned but also actively campaigned against early intervention concepts and reforms. Obviously such questioning is, to a significant extent, healthy and quite justifiable, being derived from a blend of genuine scientific conservatism, the late adopter phenomenon, and a valid fear of exposing patients to harmful stigma and overtreatment within traditional and narrow models of care, which can often do more harm than good and is more widespread than we care to acknowledge. However, the more extreme commentary on early intervention is evidence-poor and polemical, fueled by vested interests, apologists for the status quo of a narrow brand of traditional psychiatry, and, ironically, unreconstructed antipsychiatry. Nevertheless, we can take it as a positive that the tone and intensity of the debate indicates that real change and a genuine paradigm shift may be occurring. To succeed, it is crucial that early intervention remains strongly evidence-based.The frontier for early intervention is the prodromal or subthreshold stage of illness when a need for care is demonstrable yet the diagnostically clear or pathognomonic features of a particular syndrome or illness have not yet revealed themselves.9 The observation that such subthreshold or warning signs of future more severe illness, often lasting months or years, could be retrospectively identified was made more than 80 years ago by Sullivan10 and countless clinicians since then. The latter have usually experienced a sense of frustration that had they come on the scene during this more subtle phase, which turned out to be a prodromal stage of illness, perhaps it would have been possible to avert much of the patients' suffering and functional disturbance that subsequently ensued.10,11Careful research reconstructing the prodromal stage of psychotic illnesses'215 enabled the creation of operational criteria that could be used prospectively to identify a group of patients who proved to be at incipient risk of transition to psychosis. …
Read full abstract