MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Concerns reported by family members of individuals with first-episode psychosis

2011· article· en· W1841004897 on OpenAlexaff
Srividya N. Iyer, Heleen Loohuis, Nicole Pawliuk, Ridha Joober, Ashok Malla

Bibliographic record

VenueEarly Intervention in Psychiatry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily Caregiving in Mental Illness
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoeducationPsychologyPsychiatryIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologySubstance abusePsychosisHuman sexualityStigma (botany)Social stigmaMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Our aim was to examine the concerns reported by family members and other caregivers of individuals with first-episode psychosis (FEP). METHODS: Family members who attended group psychoeducation selected their top two concerns from a list of nine concerns: stigma, medication, substance abuse, social behaviour, stressful situations, self-esteem and identity, sexuality and intimacy, early warning signs, and resources and support. RESULTS: Parents, particularly mothers, were a significant majority of those who attended psychoeducation sessions. In order of frequency of endorsement, the concerns endorsed were self-esteem and identity, social behaviour, substance abuse, medications, stressful situations, early warning signs, resources and support, stigma, and sexuality and intimacy. CONCLUSION: Families were most concerned about the self-esteem and identity of their young relatives with FEP. Our findings suggest that early intervention programmes should specifically address issues of self-esteem and identity. Further research on the concerns shared by families of individuals with FEP is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarly Intervention in PsychiatrySame topicFamily Caregiving in Mental IllnessFrench-language works237,207