Early intervention in psychosis, while not a new concept, has seen great development over the last 15 years. Growth in this time has occurred in a number of areas and has attracted a broad coalition of researchers, consumers, clinicians, carers and policy makers. In this time the concept of early intervention has moved from the fringes to the mainstream of clinical approaches to psychosis in many places, and is doing so in even more. After a decade and a half, this paper reviews some of the key issues that have been addressed and points to areas where further growth and reform is still required. Some issues that have created controversy are examined here including pre-onset intervention and identification, the relationship of duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) to outcome and whether or not early intervention is an effective and economically viable model. Areas that are only now developing or which require further investigation are considered, including the concept of stages of mental illness and concomitant interventions, closing the efficacy-effectiveness gap and an increased focus on functioning as part of the recovery process. Early intervention in psychosis started as a reformist movement, agitating for change from outside the mainstream. Change has occurred and now early intervention is part of the mainstream approach to psychotic illness. In order to continue to develop, while enjoying the benefits of being a mainstream intervention, early intervention must not stray too far from its reformist roots.

The Editorial present the arguments that an alliance between academic psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry is harmful through a critical review of the academic literature and media coverage of activities of the pharmaceutical industry. The industry and the psychiatric profession both gain advantages from promoting biomedical models of psychiatric disturbance and pharmacological treatment. This confluence of interests has lead to the exaggeration of the efficacy of psychiatric drugs and neglect of their adverse effects and has distorted psychiatric knowledge and practice. Academic psychiatry has helped the industry to colonise more and more areas of modern life in order to expand the market for psychotropic drugs. Persuading people to understand their problems as biological deficiencies obscures the social origin and context of distress and prevents people from seeking social or political solutions. Psychiatry has the power to challenge the dominance of the pharmaceutical industry and should put its efforts into developing alternatives to routine drug treatment. Psychiatry needs to disengage from the industry if it wants to make genuine advances in understanding psychiatric disorder and help reverse the harmful social consequences of the widening medicalisation of human experience.

To what extent does previous and existing health economics research directly address key health system financing issues facing mental health services in developing countries? By mapping WHO's health systems framework onto mental health, three key financing questions for mental health are identified: the sufficiency of resources for mental health; the protection of individuals or households against the economic consequences of mental ill-health; and the efficient use of available resources for mental health. Research efforts to date have mainly focused on the evaluation of intervention costs in relation to mental health outcomes (the efficiency question). There is a need to achieve a greater balance between economic analysis (aimed at identifying best buys) versus financial planning (scaling up the delivery or implementation of interventions shown to be cost-effective). In addition, a better understanding and clearer articulation of the negative impact of mental disorders at the household level is needed, together with ways of alleviating financial burden via appropriate and affordable pre-payment financing mechanisms.

The present editorial discusses whether socioeconomic status of the individual and of the neighbourhood could be important in prevalence, treatment and prevention of psychiatric morbidity. Previous research showed that patients diagnosed with mental disorders are concentrated in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. This could be the result of (1) an association between individual socioeconomic status and mental health, (2) an association between neighbourhood socioeconomic status and mental health, or (3) social selection. Research disentangling associations between individual and neighbourhood socioeconomic status on the one hand and mental health outcomes on the other, reported that neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with individual mental health over and above individual-level socioeconomic status, indicating deleterious effects for all inhabitants both poor and affluent. In conclusion, subjective mental health outcomes showed stronger evidence for an effect of neighbourhood socioeconomic status than research focussing on treated incidence. Within the group of patients, however, service use was higher in patients living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Social capital was identified as one of the mechanisms whereby neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage may become associated with observed reductions in mental health. After controlling for individual socioeconomic status, there is evidence for an association between neighbourhood socioeconomic status and objective as well as subjective mental health in adults. Evidence for such an association in young children is even stronger.

The author offers a perspective on the perceived conflicts of interest that influence scientific collaborations between academic psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry. The author holds the position that the merits of a particular study should be judged based on the quality of the scientific methodology rather than on the credentials of the investigators or the source of funding.

This editorial briefly summarises some aspects of research on socio-economic status and use of mental health services that have particular relevance for the theme of this issue of Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale. This discussion takes a view from the perspective of health geography, which examines how the relationships between individuals and their social and physical environment result in variations in health and health care use. Three particular issues are considered here. First, the geographical distribution and organisation of psychiatric services may interact with social and economic factors in ways that are important for service use. Second, increasingly sophisticated ecological modelling strategies have elucidated the associations between socio-economic factors and service use at the population level. Third, more intensive, qualitative research complements these statistical analyses and encouraged reflection on the socio-economic processes, within psychiatric care settings, as well as in wider society, which influence service use.

This paper summarises the use of QALYs in evaluating changes in mental health states, highlighting the benefits and challenges of their use in this field. The general principles underlying the QALY measure and the most common methods of measuring QALYs are discussed briefly. Evidence of the usefulness and problems of using this generic measure of health-related quality of life are provided from a sample of recent studies relating to depression, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dementia. In each case, attempts were made to use QALYs to measure changes in health states. While in principle, the QALY is enormously attractive, its suitability for measuring changes in many mental health conditions remains open to doubt as existing tools for generating QALY scores such as the EQ-5D have tended not to perform sufficiently well in reflecting changes in many mental health states. New developmental work is needed to construct better QALY-measuring tools for use in the mental health field. Both the conceptualisation and measurement of QALYs need to be built on a valid, comprehensive model of quality of life specific to a mental health disorder, to ensure that the resultant tool is sensitive enough to pick up changes that would be expected and seen as relevant in the course of the illness.

Longitudinal assessment of the course of major psychiatric disorders has been advanced by studies from onset, but only rarely have large numbers of patients with a range of psychotic and major affective disorders been studied simultaneously and systematically from illness-onset. The decade-long McLean-Harvard First Episode Project & International Consortium for Bipolar Disorder Research has systematically followed-up large numbers of patients with DSM-IV bipolar or psychotic disorders from first hospitalization. Major findings among patients with bipolar I disorder include: [a] full functional recovery from initial episodes was uncommon, and full symptomatic recovery, much slower than early syndromal recovery; [b] risks of relapse, recurrence, and switching were very high in the first two years; [c] most early morbidity was depressive-dysphoric, as reported in mid-course; [d] initial depression or mixed-states predicted more later depressive and overall morbidity, whereas initial mania or psychosis predicted later mania and a better prognosis; [e] based on within-subject modeling, most patients did not show progressive cycling over time, and illness-course was rather chaotic within and among patients; [f] treatment-latency or episode-counts were unassociated with responsiveness to long-term mood-stabilizing treatment; [g] very high rates of suicidal behavior and accidents occurred early; [h] early substance-use comorbidity associated with anxiety; [i] factor-analysis of prodromal symptoms predicted bipolar disorder much better than non-affective psychotic disorders. Project findings indicate that the course of bipolar I disorder is much less favorable than had been believed formerly, despite clinical treatment with modern mood-stabilizing and other treatments.

In this paper we aim to provide an overview of initial findings from the UK ÆSOP study concerning ethnicity, social risk factors and psychosis, and to set the findings from this study within the context of other related research. Our focus is primarily on the UK African-Caribbean population. ÆSOP is a multi-centre population based incidence and case-control study of first episode psychosis, conducted initially over a three-year period. The study sample comprises: a) all patients with a first episode of psychosis who presented to secondary and tertiary services within tightly defined catchment areas in south-east London, Nottingham and Bristol, UK over defined time periods; and b) a random sample of healthy community controls. Findings from the ÆSOP study to date have confirmed that the African-Caribbean and Black African populations in the UK are at increased risk of schizophrenia and other psychoses, compared with the White British population. Analyses of data relating to social risk factors suggest that various forms of early childhood and adult adversity, and neighbourhood characteristics, including ethnic density, may be particularly important in contributing to increased risk in these populations. These data suggest that adverse social experiences maybe aetiologically relevant in schizophrenia and other psychoses. A more complete understanding of these factors may help us to clarify why there are differences in rates between populations.

Amartya Sen, who received the Nobel Prize for Economics, has demonstrated that the incidence of deprivation, in terms of capability, can be surprisingly high even in the most developed countries of the world. The study of socio-economic inequalities, in relation to the utilisation of health services, is a priority for epidemiological research. Socio-economic status (SES) has no universal definition. Within the international research literature, SES has been related to social class, social position, occupational status, educational attainment, income, wealth and standard of living. Existing research studies have shown that people from a more deprived social background, with a lower SES, are more likely to have a higher psychiatric morbidity. Many studies show that SES influences psychiatric services utilization, however the real factors linking SES and mental health services utilisation remain unclear. In this editorial we discuss what is currently known about the relationship between SES and the use of mental health services. We also make an argument for why we believe there is still much to uncover in this field, to understand fully how individuals are influenced by their personal socio-economic status, or the neighbourhood in which they live, in terms of their use of mental health services. Further research in this area will help clarify what interventions are required to provide greater equality in access to mental health services.

To provide an overview of the economic impact of poor mental health in the workplace and assess the extent to which economic evaluation has been used to further the case for investment in workplace based mental health programmes. Rapid scoping review of published and grey literature. The socio-economic costs of poor mental health in the workplace are substantial but conservative, as few studies have included productivity losses from work cutback, as well as absenteeism. While few economic evaluations of workplace based mental health interventions were identified, the available evidence base suggests that they have the potential to be highly cost effective. Much of this evidence may be from the US and be less applicable elsewhere; it may also have been solely published in company documents making assessment of methodological quality difficult. The potential economic case for workplace based mental health interventions appears good. More collaboration between policy makers and the private sector would help facilitate rigorous and transparent economic evaluations. A number of evaluations are planned. The challenge is to build on these initiatives, in order to address what remains a major gap in our knowledge on the economics of mental health.

No treatment has caused a greater revolution in the treatment of people with schizophrenia than chlorpromazine. The new generation of drugs has been embraced by psychiatry with an enthusiasm fostered by the unmet needs of both patients and industry. Recent, independently funded trials have highlighted already existing data illustrating how the new antipsychotics drugs are an additional advance but not a revolution. In this story there are lessons for psychiatry to opt for science rather than seduction.