Psychoeducation for individuals at clinical high risk for psychosis: A scoping review

Psychoeducation is recommended in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia and has been shown to improve satisfaction with mental health service and treatment adherence, reduce relapse and hospital readmission rates, and enhance functioning and quality of life. Youth at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHR) may also benefit from receiving psychoeducation as part of their treatment. The goal of this study was to conduct a scoping review to map out the existing literature on psychoeducation for CHR individuals, including content, utilization, and benefits, in order to identify areas for future research and clinical care. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection) to identify literature through 02/25/2022 that provided data or significant commentary about the provision of psychoeducation to CHR individuals. After screening titles and abstracts, four co-authors assessed full-text articles for eligibility. Thirty-three studies were included in the review. Psychoeducation is recommended in the treatment of CHR individuals, is a preferred treatment option among CHR individuals, and many CHR programs report offering psychoeducation. However, details about the psychoeducational content and method of delivery are notably absent from recommendations and reports on the provision of CHR psychoeducation in real-world settings. We identified two brief and structured CHR psychoeducation interventions and one longer-term psychoeducational multifamily group model for CHR that show feasibility and promise, though they have not yet undergone randomized trials to evaluate effectiveness of the psychoeducation. We also identified several comprehensive CHR interventions that included an explicit psychoeducation module, though the unique role of the psychoeducational component is unknown. Despite being recommended as a critical component of treatment for CHR individuals and preferred by CHR individuals, the ways in which psychoeducation are being delivered to CHR individuals in real-world practice is still largely ambiguous. Rigorous evaluations of psychoeducation treatment models are needed, as well as investment from clinical programs to facilitate the implementation and dissemination of standardized psychoeducation for CHR individuals.