A Qualitative Study of Antipsychotic Medication Experiences of Youth.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the lived experience of youth who are prescribed antipsychotics. METHODS: We conducted an interpretive phenomenology study of young people with recent experience of taking antipsychotics. Youth were interviewed and a staged approach was used for data analysis of transcriptions. We collected approximately 13 hours of audio from 18 youth aged 13 to 26 years between January and August of 2010. RESULTS: Ambivalence was significant and antipsychotic adverse effects frequently tempered benefits. Both illness and antipsychotics had significant impacts on physical and mental wellbeing with adverse effects on relationships and functioning in various contexts (e.g., school). Stigma related to both antipsychotics and illness was also prominent. Participants' limited knowledge about their antipsychotics and pressure to conform within their youth culture and context affected decisions on starting, adhering to, and persisting with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The lived experience of youth taking antipsychotics is complex and the benefits (e.g., symptom improvement) and consequences (e.g., adverse effects) associated with antipsychotics affect all facets of life. More research is needed to better understand youth priorities in treatment decisions and whether youth who demonstrate substantive gaps in their knowledge about antipsychotics are truly given the opportunity to be informed and engage in management decisions including whether to initiate, persist with, and discontinue treatments.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".