A comparison of early psychosis treatment services using consensus and evidence‐based performance measures: moving towards setting standards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study used data from two Canadian early psychosis programs to assess the feasibility of using common performance measures and to assess the extent to which each program meets suggested standards for early intervention. METHODS: Data were extracted from administrative databases and supplemented by health records for 332 individuals admitted to two services in order to calculate values for 19 performance indicators for January 2000 to January 2004. Inter-rater reliability was established for data abstraction. RESULTS: The two samples had similar demographic and clinical profiles. There were no statistically significant differences in 1-, 2- and 3-year admission rates (year 1: 27% vs. 30%, P=0.625; year 2: 31% vs. 38%, P=0.248; year 3: 35% vs. 42%, P=0.260), duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) (24 vs. 28 weeks; P=0.844) and positive symptom remission at 1 year (72% vs. 78%; P=0.285). There were statistically significant differences between the two services in mean wait time (18 vs. 13 days; P=0.045), proportion of patients on second-generation anti-psychotics at 1 year (75% vs. 89%; P=0.002), and proportion of patients adherent to antipsychotic medication for a minimum of 12 months (76% vs. 83%; P=0.007). CONCLUSION: The data provides useful information on the feasibility of implementing key performance measures across early psychosis programs to assess the extent to which they are meeting standards for such services.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".