Role changes experienced by clinical staff in relation to clients’ recovery from psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the subjective experiences of staff from many interdisciplinary teams working with clients in the recovery process from psychosis. The clinical staff interviewed in this study included: staff nurses, clinical nurse specialists, occupational therapists, psychologists, social workers, rehabilitation workers, recreation therapists, music therapists, psychiatrists, and lodging home operators. The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical staff's changing roles and relationships with clients recovering from psychosis. The investigation used a naturalistic qualitative design with an ethnographic method of data analysis. The participants were clinical staff working with clients about to commence treatment with clozapine or risperidone. The settings used were a tertiary-care psychiatric hospital and a general hospital. The clinical staff members who participated in the study were interviewed every 3 months. In the initial interview, members of the clinical staff were asked about their knowledge regarding the new medication and their role in the decision to try the new medication. In all the interviews, clinical staff members were asked about how the recovery process was progressing with the client. Data regarding clinical staff fears related to the client's situation, changes in their relationships with the client and the client's family, and what they perceived to be current rehabilitation implications, were collected. Some of the clinical staff roles that evolved during the recovery process were: health teacher; advocate; counsellor; and support person.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".