A systematic review of the incidence of schizophrenia: the distribution of rates and the influence of sex, urbanicity, migrant status and methodology

BACKGROUND: Understanding variations in the incidence of schizophrenia is a crucial step in unravelling the aetiology of this group of disorders. The aims of this review are to systematically identify studies related to the incidence of schizophrenia, to describe the key features of these studies, and to explore the distribution of rates derived from these studies. METHODS: Studies with original data related to the incidence of schizophrenia (published 1965–2001) were identified via searching electronic databases, reviewing citations and writing to authors. These studies were divided into core studies, migrant studies, cohort studies and studies based on Other Special Groups. Between- and within-study filters were applied in order to identify discrete rates. Cumulative plots of these rates were made and these distributions were compared when the underlying rates were sorted according to sex, urbanicity, migrant status and various methodological features. RESULTS: We identified 100 core studies, 24 migrant studies, 23 cohort studies and 14 studies based on Other Special Groups. These studies, which were drawn from 33 countries, generated a total of 1,458 rates. Based on discrete core data for persons (55 studies and 170 rates), the distribution of rates was asymmetric and had a median value (10%–90% quantile) of 15.2 (7.7–43.0) per 100,000. The distribution of rates was significantly higher in males compared to females; the male/female rate ratio median (10%–90% quantile) was 1.40 (0.9–2.4). Those studies conducted in urban versus mixed urban-rural catchment areas generated significantly higher rate distributions. The distribution of rates in migrants was significantly higher compared to native-born; the migrant/native-born rate ratio median (10%–90% quantile) was 4.6 (1.0–12.8). Apart from the finding that older studies reported higher rates, other study features were not associated with significantly different rate distributions (e.g. overall quality, methods related to case finding, diagnostic confirmation and criteria, the use of age-standardization and age range). CONCLUSIONS: There is a wealth of data available on the incidence of schizophrenia. The width and skew of the rate distribution, and the significant impact of sex, urbanicity and migrant status on these distributions, indicate substantial variations in the incidence of schizophrenia

Incidence of Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses in England, 1950–2009: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Background We conducted a systematic review of incidence rates in England over a sixty-year period to determine the extent to which rates varied along accepted (age, sex) and less-accepted epidemiological gradients (ethnicity, migration and place of birth and upbringing, time). Objectives To determine variation in incidence of several psychotic disorders as above. Data Sources Published and grey literature searches (MEDLINE, PSycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, ASSIA, HMIC), and identification of unpublished data through bibliographic searches and author communication. Study Eligibility Criteria Published 1950–2009; conducted wholly or partially in England; original data on incidence of non-organic adult-onset psychosis or one or more factor(s) pertaining to incidence. Participants People, 16–64 years, with first -onset psychosis, including non-affective psychoses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression and substance-induced psychosis. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods Title, abstract and full-text review by two independent raters to identify suitable citations. Data were extracted to a standardized extraction form. Descriptive appraisals of variation in rates, including tables and forest plots, and where suitable, random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions to test specific hypotheses; rate heterogeneity was assessed by the I2-statistic. Results 83 citations met inclusion. Pooled incidence of all psychoses (N = 9) was 31.7 per 100,000 person-years (95%CI: 24.6–40.9), 23.2 (95%CI: 18.3–29.5) for non-affective psychoses (N = 8), 15.2 (95%CI: 11.9–19.5) for schizophrenia (N = 15) and 12.4 (95%CI: 9.0–17.1) for affective psychoses (N = 7). This masked rate heterogeneity (I2: 0.54–0.97), possibly explained by socio-environmental factors; our review confirmed (via meta-regression) the typical age-sex interaction in psychosis risk, including secondary peak onset in women after 45 years. Rates of most disorders were elevated in several ethnic minority groups compared with the white (British) population. For example, for schizophrenia: black Caribbean (pooled RR: 5.6; 95%CI: 3.4–9.2; N = 5), black African (pooled RR: 4.7; 95%CI: 3.3–6.8; N = 5) and South Asian groups in England (pooled RR: 2.4; 95%CI: 1.3–4.5; N = 3). We found no evidence to support an overall change in the incidence of psychotic disorder over time, though diagnostic shifts (away from schizophrenia) were reported. Limitations Incidence studies were predominantly cross-sectional, limiting causal inference. Heterogeneity, while evidencing important variation, suggested pooled estimates require interpretation alongside our descriptive systematic results. Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings Incidence of psychotic disorders varied markedly by age, sex, place and migration status/ethnicity. Stable incidence over time, together with a robust socio-environmental epidemiology, provides a platform for developing prediction models for health service planning

Ethnic inequalities in the incidence of diagnosis of severe mental illness in England: a systematic review and new meta-analyses for non-affective and affective psychoses.

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01758-yPURPOSE: Although excess risks particularly for a diagnosis of schizophrenia have been identified for ethnic minority people in England and other contexts, we sought to identify and synthesise up-to-date evidence (2018) for affective in addition to non-affective psychoses by specific ethnic groups in England. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of ethnic differences in diagnosed incidence of psychoses in England, searching nine databases for reviews (citing relevant studies up to 2009) and an updated search in three databases for studies between 2010 and 2018. Studies from both searches were combined in meta-analyses allowing coverage of more specific ethnic groups than previously. RESULTS: We included 28 primary studies. Relative to the majority population, significantly higher risks of diagnosed schizophrenia were found in Black African (Relative risk, RR 5.72, 95% CI 3.87-8.46, n = 9); Black Caribbean (RR 5.20, 95% CI 4.33-6.24, n = 21); South Asian (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.63-3.16, n = 14); White Other (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.59-3.14, n = 9); and Mixed Ethnicity people (RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.32-3.80, n = 4). Significantly higher risks for diagnosed affective psychoses were also revealed: Black African (RR 4.07, 95% CI 2.27-7.28, n = 5); Black Caribbean (RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.78-4.74, n = 16); South Asian (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.07-2.72, n = 8); White Other (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32-1.83, n = 5); Mixed Ethnicity (RR 6.16, 95% CI 3.99-9.52, n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: The risk for a diagnosis of non-affective and affective psychoses is particularly elevated for Black ethnic groups, but is higher for all ethnic minority groups including those previously not assessed through meta-analyses (White Other, Mixed Ethnicity). This calls for further research on broader disadvantages affecting ethnic minority people.Lankelly Chase Foundatio

Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders in Caribbean-born migrants and their descendants in England:systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence rates, 1950–2013

Conclusions: Higher incidence rates of psychotic disorders have been present for more than 60 years amongst black Caribbean ethnic groups in England, despite improved study methodologies over time. Aetiological explanations appear to more parsimoniously account for this excess than methodological biases