Caregiver Reports of Patient-Initiated Violence in Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Aggressive behaviour in psychosis is not uncommon. Community provision for people with psychosis has left informal caregivers to take on a greater role in their care. However, few studies have explored links between patient-initiated violence in mental health caregiving relationships and caregiver functioning. Our study investigated caregiver reports of aggressive acts committed by their relative with psychosis and their links to caregiver appraisals of the caregiving relationship and caregiver outcomes. METHOD: Caregivers of patients with a recent relapse of psychosis, recruited to a psychological therapy trial, completed the audiotaped Camberwell Family Interview at baseline. This semi-structured interview includes questions on the quality of the relationship between caregiver and patient, and patient history of violence. Seventy-two transcripts of interviews were assessed for reports of patient-initiated violence. RESULTS: One-half of the caregiver sample (52.9%) reported an incident of patient-initiated violence during their interview; 62.2% of these involved violence toward themselves, and 24.3% toward property. Reports of patient violence were associated with caregiver ratings of hostility expressed toward patients, lower self-esteem, and emotion-focused coping. People caring on their own were more likely to report incidents of patient violence. Younger patients, males, and inpatients were more frequently identified as having a history of this kind of violence. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that caregiver reports of patient-initiated violence in psychosis are not uncommon. Mental health staff need to be aware of the risks of such violence for caregivers of people with psychosis, and consider appropriate procedures for minimizing it.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".