Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: Attenuated Symptoms and Monitoring
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR-P) describes a specialist-assessed state in which a person has certain recent or worsening psychosis-like experiences, brief psychotic episodes, or a particular combination of familial vulnerability and declining functioning. It indicates that closer assessment and support may be helpful. It does not establish schizophrenia, confirm that psychosis will develop, or specify a person's future. Many people identified as CHR-P never develop a full psychotic disorder; others continue to experience depression, anxiety, unusual experiences, or functional difficulties that deserve care in their own right.
The practical question is how to recognize clinically meaningful attenuated symptoms, distinguish them from other experiences, arrange an appropriately cautious assessment, and monitor distress and functioning while uncertainty remains. The NICE adult guideline recommends timely specialist assessment when attenuated or transient psychotic symptoms accompany distress or declining social functioning. Recent research also supports longitudinal, measurement-based care while showing that preventive interventions have not reliably demonstrated a durable reduction in transition to psychosis. This article explains what clinicians assess, what follow-up can accomplish, where the evidence ends, and when urgent medical evaluation matters.
What Does Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Mean?
CHR-P is a clinical risk framework used primarily in specialized early-detection services and research. Clinicians assess a pattern of experiences and changes over time, including the intensity, frequency, onset, recent worsening, conviction, insight, associated distress, and effects on everyday life. Referral or screening is the start of an evaluation; a positive screening questionnaire by itself cannot classify somebody as CHR-P. The classification is also distinct from a confirmed psychiatric disorder.
The phrase often overlaps with clinical terms such as ultra-high risk, at-risk mental state, and psychosis-risk syndrome, although specific research instruments do not always use identical entry criteria. These frameworks were developed to identify people who might benefit from prompt assessment before a clearly established psychotic episode. They usually concern help-seeking adolescents and young adults in services that can evaluate symptoms repeatedly, but clinicians must assess an individual's actual age and context rather than treating youth as a diagnostic criterion.
Psychosis itself is a clinical syndrome involving substantial disturbances of reality testing, which may include delusions, hallucinations, or markedly disorganized thought and behavior. Schizophrenia is a particular psychiatric disorder diagnosed through a broader clinical assessment, including characteristic symptoms, duration, impairment, and exclusions. The National Institute of Mental Health's explanation of psychosis makes clear that psychotic symptoms can occur in multiple psychiatric and medical conditions. Readers needing the broader distinctions can consult our English guides to psychosis and schizophrenia.
What Are Attenuated Psychotic Symptoms?
Attenuated psychotic symptoms are experiences that resemble aspects of psychosis but are less intense, less persistent, or accompanied by greater doubt or ability to question them than a fully developed psychotic symptom. An individual might wonder whether unrelated conversations contain messages about them, hear a vague sound that others cannot identify, or feel increasingly suspicious while retaining some ability to consider alternative explanations. The clinician investigates how often these experiences occur, whether they are new or increasing, how strongly they are believed, how much they interfere with daily life, and whether the person's capacity to evaluate them changes.
An unusual thought is not automatically a delusion. A fleeting perceptual experience is not automatically a hallucination indicating a psychotic disorder. Cultural and religious meanings, sleep-related phenomena, substance exposure, developmental context, trauma, and anxiety all matter. The clinician asks what the experience means to the person and whether there is a sustained change from their usual functioning. Our guides to hallucinations and their clinical assessment and delusions explain these broader phenomena without converting a single experience into a diagnosis.
Attenuated unusual thoughts and suspiciousness
A person may increasingly interpret ordinary events as personally significant, feel uncertain about whether someone is observing them, or notice unusual associations. The degree of conviction matters: having a disturbing possibility cross one's mind is clinically different from being firmly unable to consider that it might be mistaken. Assessors examine persistence, behavior driven by the belief, distress, evidence appraisal, and changes in personal relationships.
Attenuated perceptual abnormalities
Examples include indistinct murmurs, hearing one's name when nobody has spoken, visual distortions, or transient sensations of an unfamiliar presence. The context is essential: experiences during falling asleep or awakening, migraine, sensory impairment, intoxication, and severe sleep loss need their own evaluation. Changes in clarity, recurrence, attribution, and ability to reality-test help determine their clinical meaning.
Changes in speech, concentration, and functioning
Some people report becoming harder to follow in conversation, losing their train of thought, or experiencing a notable drop in performance at school or work. Social withdrawal, low motivation, poor sleep, and difficulty concentrating may accompany attenuated symptoms, but each is nonspecific. They can arise in depression, anxiety, neurodevelopmental conditions, medication effects, and many other situations. What deserves assessment is the overall trajectory: new or worsening symptoms, meaningful distress, and actual functional change. The NIMH overview describes these early changes while emphasizing the value of timely help.
Which Patterns Can Meet CHR-P Criteria?
Specialist research and clinical services most often distinguish three pathways. First, attenuated positive symptoms involve recent or worsening subthreshold unusual beliefs, perceptual changes, or disorganized communication. Second, brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms involve fully psychotic-intensity experiences that resolve quickly and do not yet satisfy criteria for a sustained psychotic episode, subject to the rules of the assessment instrument. Third, genetic risk with functional deterioration involves specified familial or related vulnerability alongside a clinically meaningful decline. Their thresholds, duration rules, and exclusions vary across structured interviews.
These categories are not interchangeable with the everyday word prodrome. A prodrome is identified retrospectively as the period before an illness actually develops. CHR-P is assessed prospectively, while the outcome remains unknown. It would be misleading to describe every person meeting a CHR-P criterion as being in the prodrome of schizophrenia. Many do not progress, and some who develop psychosis receive diagnoses other than schizophrenia. Our separate English article on early signs of schizophrenia explores the broader retrospective and clinical distinction.
An important classification detail follows. Attenuated psychosis syndrome has appeared in the DSM framework as a condition proposed for further study, rather than as a routine equivalent of a confirmed schizophrenia-spectrum diagnosis. Likewise, being judged at clinical high risk is not itself proof of a diagnosable psychotic disorder under ICD-11. The appropriate documentation depends on the clinician's evaluation and the applicable classification and care system. Research interview criteria do not replace the full diagnostic process.
How Is Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Assessed?
A thorough assessment is conducted by a clinician trained in psychosis-risk presentations, often a psychiatrist or a specialist early-intervention team. It starts with a careful clinical interview about what happened, when it started, how it changed, the person's own interpretation, and what is making everyday life harder. The assessor reviews developmental and psychiatric history, medication and substance exposure, sleep, trauma, medical conditions, family history, functioning, and current safety concerns. With the person's permission, information from family or trusted people may help establish a timeline of change.
Structured interviews commonly used in specialist settings include the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS), which is associated with the Scale of Psychosis-Risk Symptoms, and the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States (CAARMS). The instruments operationalize patterns of symptom severity, recent change, frequency, and other eligibility criteria. They require training, clinical judgment, and the ability to distinguish alternative explanations. Different instruments and populations can produce different estimates of risk, so a score has meaning only within the relevant clinical context.
Shorter self-report or clinician-administered screeners may help decide who should receive a specialist interview. Their sensitivity and specificity vary by setting, and the rate of false-positive results depends partly on how common CHR-P presentations are in the population being screened. A questionnaire used in a general school or online audience should not be interpreted as though it establishes risk in a specialized help-seeking clinic. False reassurance is also possible when a person has serious new symptoms that a brief screen does not capture.
The NICE guideline for adults recommends that assessment of a possible at-risk mental state be carried out by a consultant psychiatrist or trained specialist. It recommends referral without delay when distress and functional decline occur alongside transient or attenuated psychotic symptoms, other possible psychosis-related experiences, or first-degree family history. A family history is one piece of context; it is not a stand-alone clinical prediction.
Differential Diagnosis: What Else Can Cause Similar Experiences?
A careful assessment asks which explanation best fits the symptoms and their time course. Anxiety can produce hypervigilance, threat interpretations, and persistent worry about others' intentions. Obsessive thoughts may feel intrusive or frightening, particularly when the person repeatedly checks their meaning, but the process of obsession and doubt differs from a fixed delusion. Depression may contribute to withdrawal, slowed thinking, and unusual experiences. Trauma-related symptoms can involve dissociation, altered perception, and mistrust, which require contextual assessment.
Mood episodes demand particular attention. Clear manic or depressive episodes with psychotic features are evaluated in relation to their mood course, and a person may have psychosis arising in bipolar disorder or major depressive disorder rather than a primary schizophrenia-spectrum condition. Substance-associated experiences, including those related to cannabis, stimulants, alcohol withdrawal, or prescribed medications, require a detailed exposure timeline. Suspected intoxication or withdrawal can also be medically urgent. Our condition-specific guide to substance-induced psychosis expands that diagnostic question.
Clinicians also consider neurological illness, seizures, autoimmune or inflammatory disease, endocrine or metabolic disturbance, severe sleep deprivation, sensory impairment, and delirium. Sudden onset, fluctuating alertness, disorientation, fever, new neurological signs, severe headache, or a new change in consciousness should redirect attention toward prompt medical assessment. In older adults, new hallucinations or paranoia warrant evaluation for medical and neurocognitive causes; an early-risk framework designed largely around young help-seeking populations should not be applied automatically. See our English guide to psychosis due to a medical condition.
Cultural and developmental context also affects interpretation. Spiritual practices, imaginative experiences, autism-related communication differences, and ordinary adolescent experimentation with ideas may be mistaken for psychotic symptoms if an interview ignores the individual's background. A strong assessment examines distress, functional impact, change from baseline, and the quality of reality testing, while respecting the person's language and explanatory framework.
Does CHR-P Mean That Schizophrenia Will Develop?
No. CHR-P denotes elevated group-level probability under specific clinical definitions, while an individual's future remains uncertain. In a major 2021 JAMA Psychiatry meta-analysis of 130 longitudinal studies encompassing 9,222 CHR-P participants, the estimated cumulative probability of transition to psychosis was about 20% at two years and about 25% at three years. A longer-term Kaplan–Meier analysis reached about 35% at ten years, with substantially fewer people still under observation at later time points. Those figures concern carefully selected cohorts and psychosis in general, not a personal probability of schizophrenia.
The denominators, follow-up windows, symptom criteria, recruitment setting, prior treatment, and methods all affect estimates. Referral to a specialized clinic selects people differently from screening a general population. The meta-analysis found substantial heterogeneity, and estimates at different time points were derived from different subsets of studies. Even an apparently precise population percentage cannot be turned into a deterministic forecast for one person.
A further distinction is that not transitioning to psychosis does not always mean that every difficulty resolves. A 2022 meta-analysis of 28 studies, following 2,756 people identified as CHR-P, found improvement in symptoms and functioning among non-transitioning participants; approximately 48.7% met remission criteria at follow-up, with wide uncertainty. Some people still required treatment for mood problems, functional impairment, or lingering attenuated symptoms. This is why useful clinical care has goals beyond simply preventing a diagnostic transition.
Can clinicians predict who will transition?
Researchers study the severity of attenuated symptoms, brief intermittent psychosis, functional decline, negative symptoms, cognitive performance, family history, and biological markers. Some associations are reproducible at group level, but most candidate predictors remain insufficiently robust and transportable for confident individual predictions. Apparent accuracy in a development cohort may weaken when a model is tested in a new location or different clinical service.
A specialist can therefore communicate risk as a revisable clinical judgment informed by the full picture, rather than as a countdown or fixed percentage. A useful discussion includes what the team is watching, which developments would change the care plan, how distress will be addressed now, and what will happen if symptoms remit. No online conversion calculator can substitute for this conversation.
What Does Monitoring Actually Involve?
Monitoring is an active, collaborative process that tracks changes in experiences, functioning, wellbeing, and safety over time. At follow-up visits, the clinician asks about the frequency, intensity, and meaning of unusual perceptions or beliefs; sleep; mood and anxiety; educational or occupational participation; relationships; substance exposure; and any new difficulties with reality testing. Where appropriate, the same validated instrument is used over repeated visits so that change can be interpreted more consistently.
The NICE adult guideline CG178 recommends regular monitoring for up to three years when distress, symptoms, or functional impairment continue without a clear diagnosis of psychosis. The frequency and duration depend on symptom severity and frequency, impairment or distress, and family disruption or concern. This is a guideline recommendation for a clinical scenario, not an instruction for every person to attend on an identical schedule. The 2026 World Psychiatry recommendations describe measurement-based CHR-P monitoring at least every six months in high-resource settings, while clinical deterioration or acute safety concerns require faster review.
A good monitoring plan makes clear who the contact clinician is, how an appointment can be brought forward, what information the person wants recorded, and how a change in symptoms will be handled. Clinicians may use a shared written plan to distinguish ordinary symptom fluctuation from meaningful changes, including increased conviction in unusual beliefs, a major deterioration in functioning, sustained hallucinations, or new disorganization. If symptoms become clearly psychotic, assessment shifts promptly toward a first-episode psychosis pathway, which has different treatment indications.
How long should follow-up continue?
There is no universally appropriate duration for every person. NICE's up-to-three-year guidance applies to persistent symptoms or difficulties without established psychosis. Longer-term research indicates that transitions can also occur after the earliest follow-up period, yet continuing specialist services indefinitely for every person may be neither necessary nor proportionate. Decisions should reflect current symptoms, functional recovery, evolving risk, preferences, local resources, and a safe route back into care.
When a person is improving and requests discharge, a plan may include primary care coordination, clear signs for reassessment, and an option to self-refer. A person who continues to experience anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, or school and work difficulties deserves assessment and care for those problems regardless of whether a psychotic disorder ever develops. The aim is continuity appropriate to current need.
What Treatments Are Recommended While Risk Is Uncertain?
Treatment is guided by the person's present difficulties and goals. For someone with distressing attenuated symptoms, the priorities may include reducing anxiety, improving sleep, restoring school or work participation, strengthening supportive relationships, and helping the person respond more flexibly to unusual thoughts and perceptions. A treatment plan should address co-occurring psychiatric or physical conditions and be developed through shared decision-making.
NICE recommends offering individual cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), with or without family intervention, to adults considered at increased risk of psychosis. Its clinical recommendations also call for guideline-based treatment of co-occurring depression, anxiety, personality-related difficulties, or substance use. CBT may help a person explore distressing interpretations, manage anxiety, develop coping strategies, and re-engage with valued activities. Family work can improve communication and practical support when the person wants relatives involved.
The prevention evidence needs careful interpretation. A 2025 meta-analysis from the World Psychiatric Association Preventive Psychiatry section, covering 24 randomized controlled trials with 3,236 CHR-P participants, found no sustained and robust evidence that investigated active interventions reliably prevented transition to psychosis. For CBT versus controls, the pooled transition result at 12 months was statistically inconclusive (odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.39–1.06). Supportive psychological care can still be worthwhile for current distress and functioning without being advertised as a proven way to prevent schizophrenia.
Should antipsychotic medication be used?
The treatment threshold is different when a person has CHR-P symptoms without an established psychotic disorder. NICE explicitly advises against prescribing antipsychotic medication solely because a person is considered at increased risk, or for the purpose of preventing psychosis. Its parallel guidance for children and young people advises against antipsychotics for attenuated symptoms insufficient for a psychosis diagnosis and against using them to reduce future psychosis risk.
Guidelines from different organizations and countries do not always match every clinical scenario, and severe or changing presentations may require individualized specialist decisions. Any medication discussion must examine the actual current diagnosis, expected benefit, alternatives, age, metabolic and movement-related side effects, and monitoring needs. Antipsychotic medication is a standard treatment component for many confirmed psychotic disorders, which is a separate clinical situation. A person should neither start nor stop prescribed medication on the basis of a risk label or online article.
What about sleep, stress, substance use, and social support?
Sleep problems, stress, social isolation, and substance exposure may worsen distress or complicate assessment. Addressing these factors is sensible supportive care, with the type of intervention matched to the problem and underlying diagnosis. Clinicians should ask nonjudgmentally about cannabis, stimulants, alcohol, and other substances, because timing and intensity can influence symptoms and safety. No single lifestyle technique has been established as a substitute for specialist assessment or as a guaranteed prevention strategy.
Practical support can be as important to a person's life as symptom scores: accommodations at school, help returning to work, consistent sleep routines, social contact, and access to affordable mental healthcare. Family members can assist by listening carefully, observing changes without interrogating the person, and supporting mutually agreed appointments. Such work can support functioning whether or not psychosis develops.
Clinical High Risk Versus First-Episode Psychosis
CHR-P monitoring concerns people who have not met the relevant criteria for a sustained psychotic episode. First-episode psychosis describes an actual first recognized episode of psychosis requiring timely diagnostic evaluation and treatment. The boundary is determined through symptom intensity, duration, loss of reality testing, functioning, and competing medical or psychiatric explanations, rather than by a fixed self-reported score.
A progression to sustained delusions, hallucinations, markedly disorganized thought, or severe behavioral disturbance changes the clinical priority. The team must assess possible psychotic illness and acute medical causes without waiting for a routine monitoring appointment. For established first-episode psychosis, evidence supports coordinated specialty care combining tailored psychiatric treatment, psychological care, family involvement when appropriate, and help with education or employment. The NIMH RAISE initiative documents improved engagement and functional outcomes compared with usual care in early psychosis services. See our specific English guide to first-episode psychosis.
Safety: When Should Assessment Become Urgent?
A person needs prompt medical assessment when there are newly sustained hallucinations or delusions, substantial confusion, rapid deterioration in the ability to care for themselves, or a sudden severe change from their usual mental state. Emergency evaluation is especially important when symptoms begin abruptly with fever, disorientation, altered consciousness, seizures, new neurological symptoms, suspected intoxication or withdrawal, or other signs of an acute medical problem. Those findings must not be attributed automatically to CHR-P.
Urgent help is also needed for suicidal thoughts with intent or a plan, instructions from voices to harm oneself or another person, dangerous behavior, or severe agitation that makes immediate safety uncertain. Marked immobility, stupor, inability to eat or drink, or unusual sustained posturing can indicate catatonia or another emergency. If immediate danger is present, call local emergency services or go to an emergency department. In the United States, call or text 988 for suicide or mental health crisis support; the NIMH guidance describes this pathway.
Early intervention should also avoid frightening or coercive communication. A helpful approach is to acknowledge that an experience feels real and distressing, ask open questions, and seek a qualified assessment without confirming a threatening interpretation. Families should not attempt to prove a person wrong through confrontation, and services should explain confidentiality, consent, available support, and any legal limits.
Special Considerations for Adolescents and Young Adults
Psychosis-risk services frequently see people during adolescence and young adulthood, when educational changes, sleep disruption, emotional difficulties, and developmental transitions can also produce nonspecific symptoms. The assessment needs an age-appropriate interview and attention to the person's baseline development, school participation, family environment, communication, and mental health history.
The NICE guideline for children and young people recommends timely referral for transient or attenuated psychotic symptoms suggestive of possible psychosis and supports CBT with or without family intervention when experiences are accompanied by distress or impairment but do not establish psychosis. Decisions about involving parents or caregivers should take age, consent, privacy, safeguarding, and local law into account. The young person's own account must remain central.
A label that appears permanent or frightening can become an unnecessary burden. Clinicians should explain what is known, describe what is being monitored, and make clear that risk-state categorization is revisable. The immediate objective is help with present problems and meaningful participation in life.
Living With Diagnostic Uncertainty
Uncertainty is part of this clinical framework and should be communicated clearly. People may feel relieved that someone recognizes their distress while simultaneously fearing a diagnosis they do not have. Clinicians can reduce avoidable stigma by distinguishing the experience itself, a screening signal, an interview-defined risk state, and a confirmed psychiatric disorder. Informed consent includes explaining the limitations of risk estimates and the possible emotional consequences of surveillance.
Collaborative care can place daily-life goals beside symptom monitoring. Rather than asking only whether a person has crossed a threshold into psychosis, a service can ask whether sleep has improved, whether school feels manageable, whether relationships are safer, and whether the person can obtain help when worried. Relatives and clinicians should resist treating every ordinary behavior as a sign of an approaching disorder. Progress may involve improvement, remission, fluctuation, or a change in the best clinical explanation.
The fact that a substantial number of CHR-P participants do not transition to psychosis is important; it does not make their current distress trivial. Equally, identifying a risk state is a reason to offer proportionate care, not a justification to tell someone that schizophrenia is inevitable.
Practical Questions to Ask a Specialist
A productive appointment begins with questions that can be answered in clinical terms. Ask which specific experiences are being assessed, whether a structured interview is appropriate, what other explanations are being considered, and which changes in functioning matter most. Ask what symptoms would require an earlier appointment or urgent assessment, how often follow-up is recommended and why, and what the team plans to do for existing anxiety, mood symptoms, sleep difficulties, or academic and occupational problems.
It is also reasonable to ask how uncertain risk estimates are, whether medication is clinically indicated for a currently established condition, what alternatives exist, which side effects would be monitored, and how personal preferences enter decisions. A written plan should identify whom to contact, how to access services after discharge, and what role the person wants relatives or supporters to have.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is clinical high risk for psychosis a diagnosis of schizophrenia?
No. CHR-P is a specialist risk-state classification. Schizophrenia requires its own diagnostic evaluation, symptom pattern, duration and exclusions. Some people in CHR-P programs later experience psychosis; many do not.
Can someone have mild hallucinations without developing psychosis?
Yes. Transient or ambiguous perceptual experiences can occur in many clinical and nonclinical contexts. Their meaning depends on recurrence, intensity, associated beliefs, reality testing, medical factors, distress, and functional impact. New or worsening experiences deserve an individualized assessment.
What is the difference between attenuated psychosis syndrome and CHR-P?
Attenuated psychosis syndrome is a research-oriented diagnostic formulation focusing on attenuated positive symptoms under specified criteria. CHR-P is a broader specialist clinical research framework that can include attenuated symptoms, brief limited intermittent psychotic symptoms, and certain genetic-risk/functional-decline presentations. The terms are related but not completely interchangeable.
Is a positive psychosis risk questionnaire enough?
No. A positive screen indicates that further evaluation may be useful. It does not diagnose CHR-P, schizophrenia, or first-episode psychosis. A trained clinician must assess the person's experiences, history, functioning, differential diagnoses and safety.
How likely is psychosis after a CHR-P assessment?
In one large synthesis of specialized cohorts, roughly one in five participants transitioned within two years, with estimates changing across time and settings. These results describe groups and cannot establish an individual's outcome. Diagnostic transitions can involve different psychotic disorders, not only schizophrenia. See the original longitudinal meta-analysis.
Can treatment prevent schizophrenia?
No intervention has been shown consistently to prevent psychosis over the long term in the heterogeneous CHR-P population. Recommended support can address current symptoms, functioning and co-occurring conditions. A 2025 systematic review found that intervention evidence did not establish a sustained, robust preventive effect across investigated strategies.
Does monitoring require antipsychotic medication?
No. Risk-state monitoring and supportive psychological care generally do not require antipsychotics. NICE advises against prescribing them specifically to prevent psychosis in people at increased risk. Medication may be appropriate for another independently established indication after a clinician considers benefits, adverse effects and alternatives.
How often should a person be monitored?
Frequency should reflect symptoms, distress, functioning, and safety. NICE describes structured monitoring for up to three years when symptoms or impairment persist without a clear psychosis diagnosis; 2026 World Psychiatric Association recommendations discuss at least six-monthly monitoring in high-resource settings. A significant change should be assessed sooner rather than postponed until a scheduled visit.
Can CHR-P symptoms disappear?
Yes. Some people improve substantially or meet remission criteria, while others continue to experience difficulties that benefit from care. A 2022 meta-analysis of non-transitioning CHR-P cohorts reported improvement across several domains, with approximately half remitting at follow-up. Improvement deserves recognition; persistent needs deserve continued attention.
Where can someone seek assessment in the United States?
A primary care clinician, psychiatrist, or early psychosis assessment program can help identify an appropriate referral. Specialized services vary by region and availability. If a person is experiencing sustained psychotic symptoms, the focus should move promptly from risk assessment to evaluation and treatment of a possible current psychotic episode.
Related Articles
References
Fusar-Poli, P., et al. (2026). Real-world comprehensive care of people living with schizophrenia: Recommendations across different settings and clinical stages. World Psychiatry, 25, 231–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.70066
Minichino, A., Davies, C., Karpenko, O., et al. (2025). Preventing psychosis in people at clinical high risk: An updated meta-analysis by the World Psychiatric Association Preventive Psychiatry section. Molecular Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-025-02902-8
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2013; updated 2016). Psychosis and schizophrenia in children and young people: Recognition and management (CG155). NICE guideline
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2014). Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: Prevention and management (CG178). NICE guideline
National Institute of Mental Health. (n.d.). Understanding psychosis. NIMH publication
National Institute of Mental Health. (2022). Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode (RAISE). NIMH research initiative
Salazar de Pablo, G., Radua, J., Pereira, J., et al. (2021). Probability of transition to psychosis in individuals at clinical high risk: An updated meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 78(9), 970–978. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0830
Salazar de Pablo, G., Soardo, L., Cabras, A., et al. (2022). Clinical outcomes in individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis who do not transition to psychosis: A meta-analysis. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 31, e9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000639