Filling the implementation gap: a community–academic partnership approach to early intervention in psychosis
Article first published online: 27 OCT 2011
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Early Intervention in Psychiatry
Volume 5, Issue 4, pages 366–374, November 2011
How to Cite
Hardy, K. V., Moore, M., Rose, D., Bennett, R., Jackson-Lane, C., Gause, M., Jackson, A. and Loewy, R. (2011), Filling the implementation gap: a community–academic partnership approach to early intervention in psychosis. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 5: 366–374. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7893.2011.00310.x
- Issue published online: 27 OCT 2011
- Article first published online: 27 OCT 2011
- Received 3 January 2011; accepted 9 September 2011
- at risk;
- early intervention;
- recent-onset psychosis;
- service development
Aim: The aim of this study was to describe the development of a sustainable community early psychosis programme created through an academic–community partnership in the United States to other parties interested in implementing early psychosis services founded upon evidence-based practices within community settings.
Methods: The service was developed around a sustainable core of key components, founded upon evidence-based practice, with additional flexible elements that could be adapted to the needs of the individual commissioning county. This paper describes the ways in which funding was sourced and secured as well as the partnerships developed through this process.
Results: Successful development of the Prevention and Recovery from Early Psychosis (PREP) programme in San Francisco County, California. PREP clinicians have received extensive training in the evidence-based approaches that are available through the programme and treated 30 clients and their families in the first year of operation.
Conclusions: Development of a sustainable community programme of this type in a non-universal health-care setting, which is historically seen as non-integrated, required extensive partnering with agencies familiar with local resources. Implementation of the community–academic partnership bridged the gap between research and practice with successful integration of fidelity practice at the community level. The community partners were effective in sourcing funding and allocating resources, while the academic side of the partnership provided training in evidence-based models and oversight of clinical implementation of the model. Stringent evaluation of the impact of the service is our next focus.