Cognitive behavioural therapy reduces short term rehospitalisation compared with psychoeducation in inpatients with schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bechdolf A, Knost B, Kuntermann C, et al . A randomized comparison of group cognitive-behavioural therapy and group psychoeducation in patients with schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2004;110:21–8.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q How does group cognitive behavioural treatment compare with psychoeducation for inpatients with schizophrenia? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6] Allocation: Concealed allocation. ### ![Graphic][7] Blinding: Unblinded. ### ![Graphic][8] Follow up period: Six months. ### ![Graphic][9] Setting: Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy at University of Cologne; July 1999 to December 2000. ### ![Graphic][10] Patients: Eighty eight inpatients aged 18–64 years with schizophrenia or a related psychiatric disorder (ICD-10: F 20, F 23, F 25). People with drug or alcohol dependency; learning disability; hearing impairment and organic brain disease were excluded. Mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score (PANSS) was about 32 in each treatment group. ### ![Graphic][11] Intervention: Eight weeks of psychoeducation (PE) or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Weekly PE training involved instructive sessions covering symptoms and models of psychosis; … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DActa%2Bpsychiatrica%2BScandinavica%26rft.stitle%253DActa%2BPsychiatr%2BScand%26rft.aulast%253DBechdolf%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%26rft.volume%253D110%26rft.issue%253D1%26rft.spage%253D21%26rft.epage%253D28%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Brandomized%2Bcomparison%2Bof%2Bgroup%2Bcognitive-behavioural%2Btherapy%2Band%2Bgroup%2Bpsychoeducation%2Bin%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2Bschizophrenia.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1111%252Fj.1600-0447.2004.00300.x%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15180776%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1600-0447.2004.00300.x&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15180776&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F8%2F1%2F8.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000221741100004&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".