The impact of socioeconomic factors on the incidence and characteristics of first-episode psychosis.

Abstract

Aim: The environment shapes the risk of psychosis. In particular, urbanicity, deprivation or inequality, migrant density and cannabis availability may not only influence psychosis incidence, but also the characteristics of individuals who arrive at clinical services. This study examined how socioeconomic factors influence the incidence and characteristics of cases of First-Episode Psychosis (FEP).

Methods: We analysed prospective data collected from the FEP early detection programme of Emilia-Romagna, a high-income Italian region. Participants were 1240 individuals aged 18-35 years, who presented at the public healthcare services for a FEP. Exposures were derived from area-level data of 331 municipalities. We used population density, socioeconomic deprivation, educational deprivation, economic inequality, migrant density (proportion of migrants), frequent cannabis use (proportion of people aged 15-19 years old who reported frequent cannabis use). Outcome measures were FEP incidence (cases/100 000 inhabitants at risk per year) and characteristics (age of onset, migrant status, unemployment, substance use, treatment lag [DUP], family and resource problems). We reviewed pertinent literature, and formulated a Directed Acyclic Graph to present causal assumptions and provide adjustment sets for Bayesian spatial and multilevel models of social causation. To compare the effects of different exposures, we computed Average Marginal Effects and report the outcome changes that correspond to one standard deviation change of the exposure, incidence rate ratios (IRR) or odds ratios (OR).

Results: The exposures and incidence of FEP displayed heterogeneous spatial distribution, with no spatially organized pattern. Accordingly, incidence and characteristics were best modelled as non-spatial, three-level hierarchical models. The incidence of FEP was influenced by population density (IRR, 1.14; 95% CrI, 1.03; 1.29), educational deprivation (IRR, 1.15; 95% CrI, 1.02; 1.31) and frequent cannabis use (IRR, 1.31; 95% CrI, 0.98; 1.82), more than socioeconomic deprivation. Higher migrant density in an area shortened the DUP on average by 3.4 months (95% CrI, -1.122; 0.76), while an increase of cannabis use of one standard deviation increased the DUP of 12.9 months (95% CrI, -2.86; 6229). Socioeconomic deprivation increased the likelihood of FEP cases being substance users (OR, 1.12; 95% CrI, 1.01; 1.26), while population density decreased it (OR, 0.91; 95% CrI, 0.83; 1.00).

Conclusions: Area-level socioeconomic features affect both the incidence and the characteristics of FEP, including the probability of individual being migrants, substance users or having a different DUP. Educational deprivation may function as a proxy for culture- or cognitive-related factors. Area-level socioeconomic data may inform public healthcare strategies for early identification and availability of tertiary clinical services.