“There are too many steps before you get to where you need to be”: Help-seeking by patients with first-episode psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been substantial research on pathways to care in first-episode psychosis (FEP); however, few studies have used a qualitative research paradigm or have been done from the perspective of the person experiencing the psychotic episode. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe the experiences of patients with FEP on their pathway to care and to identify factors that help or hinder help-seeking efforts. METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 16 patients recruited from an early intervention program. Data were analyzed using content analysis to organize the findings into themes. FINDINGS: Self-stigma and a pervasive lack of knowledge regarding the symptoms of psychosis and availability of services were barriers to help-seeking. Participants highlighted the crucial role of significant others in initiating the help-seeking process. Participants typically described a complex series of contacts along the pathway to care which resulted in feelings of being misunderstood and losing control, but many individuals identified unexpected benefits of their experience. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a shift in the philosophy and orientation of service delivery towards the creation of services that address these concerns and are relevant to the young people who utilize them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".