Psychosis Literacy in a Canadian Health Region: Results from a General Population Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the public's level of mental health literacy for psychosis. METHOD: A cross-sectional telephone survey using a random phone number selection procedure was conducted to identify a sample of 1685 participants comprised of youth at risk (aged 15 to 39 [corrected] years) and parents of youth at risk of psychosis (aged 35 to 59 years). The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry regrets the error and any inconvenience it might have caused. [corrected]. Participants were asked about their awareness of symptoms and causes of schizophrenia and psychosis, treatment options, and preferred channels for obtaining information about health and mental health. RESULTS: The response rate was 73%. There was a high reported knowledge of the term schizophrenia (76%), but a low reported knowledge of the term psychosis (23%). Ninety-one per cent of participants agreed that medications can control symptoms of schizophrenia. Significant barriers to getting help included not knowing the early signs of psychosis, concerns about being labelled mentally ill or psychotic, and not knowing where to go for help. Preferred communication elements to reach at-risk youth and their families were pamphlets at family physicians' and school counsellors' offices, posters on buses, television and radio advertisements, and information on websites. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas there is good knowledge about recognition and treatment of schizophrenia, there is less awareness of the broader concept of psychosis. Barriers to accessing care included recognition of early signs of psychosis and stigma. Public education programs aimed at promoting earlier intervention would need to address information about both psychosis and stigma.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".