Stages of recovery in early psychosis: Associations with symptoms, function, and narrative development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the links between recovery stages, symptoms, function, and narrative development among individuals with a recent onset of psychosis. DESIGN: A qualitative longitudinal study was conducted including quantitative data at baseline. METHODS: Forty-seven participants were administered the Indiana Psychiatric Illness Interview three times over 9 months and content analysis was performed. Participants also completed the Social Functioning Scale, the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale--Expanded, the California Verbal Learning Test, and the Trailing Making Test at baseline. Descriptive discriminant analysis was performed. RESULTS: Results suggested that participants were mostly in the first two stages of recovery (moratorium, awareness) and that being in the awareness, rather than moratorium, stage was associated, to a different extent, with richer narrative development, better levels of psychosocial function, less negative and positive symptoms, and more years of education. Furthermore, recovery appeared to be a stable process over the assessment period. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery is a complex concept including objective and subjective aspects. In the recovery path of persons recently diagnosed with psychosis, social engagement, narrative development, and occupational functioning seem to be particularly important aspects. This study is a first step, and future research is needed with larger and more diverse participant pools, and assessments conducted over longer periods of time. PRACTITIONER POINTS: As greater level of social engagement was the most robust predictor of membership in the awareness versus moratorium stage, treatment of early psychosis should include interventions targeting social relations and social skills. As greater narrative development was the second most robust predictor, enhancing it via psychotherapy could be a pertinent clinical goal.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".