Social Network Intervention in Patients with Schizophrenia and Marked Social Withdrawal: A Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of actions intended to implement or improve patients' social network within the Italian National Health Service community mental health services. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial through a network of 47 community mental health services on patients with a diagnosis in the schizophrenia spectrum (F20 in the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision), who were young (aged younger than 45 years), and with a poor social network (less than 5 relationships). In addition to routine treatments, for the experimental group, the staff identified possible areas of interest for individual patients and proposed social activities taking place outside the services' resources and with members of the community. The main outcome was an improvement in the patients' social network; secondary end points were clinical outcome, abilities of daily living, and work. RESULTS: One- and 2-year outcomes of 345 and 327, respectively, of the 357 patients randomized were analyzed by intention-to-treat. A social network improvement was observed at year 1 in 25% of the patients allocated to routine treatment and in 39.9% of those allocated to the experimental arm (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.1; adjusted OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4 to 3.9). The difference remained statistically significant at year 2. No significant differences emerged for any of the other end points. However, patients with 1 or more other areas of improvement at year 1 and 2 showed a statistically significant social network improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The activation of social networks as an activity integrated with standard psychiatric care is practicable, without added economic and organizational costs, and appears to produce an effect persisting well beyond its implementation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".