FEP treatment programs are far from implemented and established in our country. In this longitudinal study of FEP patients, the first conducted in Greece, we report rates of relapse within a year from first psychosis manifestation. Moreover, low follow-up rates raise concerns for the efficacy of available FEP Programs and emphasize the need for keeping up with international standards of Service models and the principles of Early Intervention.

In our study, patients who retained contact at one year follow-up time point did not differ in terms of baseline characteristics from FEP patients that refused follow-up, thus they could be considered a representative sample to report relapse rates. Furthermore, this indicates that basic demographic differences or illness-related characteristics are unlikely to explain relapse rates observed within a year of first contact. Relapse within a year was defined stringently by hospital readmission. Relapse rates of 21,8% are consistent with the literature regarding 1st year relapse rates in FEP patients [14]. However, DUP, clinical diagnosis, symptomatology and functionality were not associated with relapse, in contrast with main research findings [4]. The small sample of patients that experienced relapse could be a study limitation and a plausible explanation for the above results. Research evidence suggests that a number of risk factors, predominantly medication non-adherence, substance use disorder and poorer premorbid adjustment have been associated with increased relapse rates [14]. These factors were not found to be related with relapse rates in our analysis with the exception of medication non-adherence as expected [25], however we should consider that we haven’t been able to explore drivers of relapse for individuals who disengaged and this might bias towards FEP patients who followed-up and for whom treatment adherence has a greater impact. Lower relapse rates have been consistently reported as a favourable outcome of EIS vs TAU (19.6% vs 29.1% respectively) [8]. Given that the risk of relapse increases over time [14], we assume that if the follow-up period was extended beyond a year, relapse rates reported in this study may be even higher, similar to comparable TAU studies of longer duration [8]. Furthermore, the high relapse rates reported here cannot be attributable to a broader definition of the construct since relapse was stringently defined as hospitalization rather as a potentially more frequent period of symptom exacerbation. The one-year duration of our follow-up study and the stringent definition of hospitalization as a psychotic symptomatology exacerbation could explain our findings compared to reported rates of 42,4% all-cause hospitalization in TAU services [8].

Low follow-up rates in our study raise skepticism concerning the effectiveness of existing FEP services. While service disengagement is considered a negative prognostic factor [26], the majority of our FEP patients refused continuation of outpatient treatment, as provided by our hospital-based TAU settings. The definition of service disengagement is heterogenous and rates ranging from 6 to 60% [27] and from 12 to 53% [28] are reported. However, recent studies, focusing on EIS, report an outcome of 15,6% on 2 years follow-up average [13] and 32% within the first 12 months after enrollment [29]. In countries where EIS have been established, disengagement rates have declined and the main cause is the multidimensional treatment approach provided to FEP patients [13]. In our study attrition at first year has been 62%, in contrast with reported disengagement rates of studies concerning both EIS and TAU. It is plausible to assume that these high attrition rates could be due to provided treatment, as 4 out of 5 clinical settings across Athens offer TAU as standard follow-up (clinical, hospital-based follow-up without specific psychological or psychosocial interventions). The only FEP Outpatient Service in Athens does not operate within a clear catchment area and it neither provides outreach services to the community nor multidimensional therapeutic approaches based on EIS principles, thus offering services resembling more a TAU setting rather than EIS [9].

Amongst predictors of disengagement, substance use, contact with the criminal justice system, medication non-adherence, lower symptom severity are considered as important [13]. Individuals with low symptom severity are less likely to engage, since they feel they don’t need any treatment, however the clinical profile (as estimated by baseline and first-month PANSS) in our sample was not associated with service engagement. In our analysis, we were not able to explore criminal records or other than cannabis substance use and lack of family support [28] as factors for service disengagement, however, none of the analyzed demographic, clinical- and functionality-related factors were related with service engagement. Given that the greatest challenge for this study is the high drop-out rate, it is hard to determine whether the results represent an accurate description of patients using FEP services in Greece. However, the lack of association with psychosis-related factors explored does not exclude the possibility that other non-specific, non-clinical factors such as the lack of mental health service sectorization, traumatic experiences related to hospitalization or reluctance to be treated with antipsychotic medication might be a reason for not choosing the same clinical setting for follow-up. Engaging a person with the service and building a relationship from which therapy and treatment can be facilitated, is a major contributor for improving outcomes [30]. To address patients’ multidimensional needs, community-based, recovery-oriented, non-stigmatizing assertive programs, such as EIS, might maximize follow-up engagement.

By reporting relapse and high disengagement rates, the Athens FEP study describes the current TAU model of care and underlines the importance for the implementation of EIS in our country providing also a benchmark against which future EIS for psychosis in Greece will have to demonstrate superior efficacy. We propose that a transition from Standard Care to Early Interventions Services would be highly desirable, since they aim at reducing hospital admissions, relapse rates, maximizing follow-up engagement, as in other countries [31]. While we cannot conclusively argue on the specific drivers of relapse rates of patients who disengage, future well designed studies may determine which patients with specific characteristics (clinical, demographic, functional, cognitive) would benefit more from such services. EIS have a clear benefit for patients and their families [8, 32] and moreover there is consistent evidence that the implementation of EIS might be cost-effective for Mental Health Care Systems [33]. While intervention in primary psychosis remains challenging [34, 35], filling the therapeutic gap for FEP patients offering optimized, community-based, multi-disciplinary approaches should be a priority. Quality in Mental Health Services is pivotal for the effectiveness and efficiency of mental healthcare systems [36]. While scarce financial support and lack of government recognition of EIS importance are reported as key barriers for implementation of EIS services [37], a recent government legislation setting the legal framework for the establishment of EIS in Greece (Official Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, A 256—23.12.2020) within the National Health System has been an important, but still a first, initial step. Even though there is still much to be done, such advances raise justified optimism for a new era of treating psychosis by implementing fundamental principles of early intervention.

This study has a number of limitations that need to considered. Firstly, the appropriate design that would enable the comparison of outcomes between an EIS vs TAU was not considered, since EIS are substantively unavailable in Greece. The small sample size of patients hospitalized due to a severe relapse could be considered a further study limitation, since the multivariate logistic regression approach is exposed to selection bias. A missing imputation strategy was not followed in the present study, as the reason of missingness was not completely understood and a possible loss of power due to sample size restriction should be considered as a further limitation of our results. Moreover, in our small follow-up sample, unobserved drivers of disengagement and relapse further increase selection bias towards interpreting our findings. Treatment discontinuation could not be distinguished from partial non-adherence, as it is based on patients’ self-report. Likewise, cannabis use variable may also include a reporting bias.

In summary, our FEP study demonstrated that demographic, clinical and functional determinants failed to predict high service engagement and relapse rates during the first year, however we should consider existing methodological limitations and that absence of evidence is unlikely to be evidence of absence. By reporting service engagement and one-year hospitalization rates in our FEP sample, current TAU care model in Greece is described and a baseline is set against which an upcoming health policy concerning future EIS implementation should be judged.