Functional performance in activities of daily living of individuals with a dual-diagnosis of schizophrenia and substance-use disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Research on functional performance of individuals with schizophrenia and substance use is limited, focusing primarily on cognitive impairments. Research findings are conflicting, making it difficult to understand how these individuals function despite their cognitive impairments. There is a need to use performance-based assessments to understand how individuals with a dual-diagnosis accomplish their daily living activities. Aims To describe the functional performance of individuals with a dual-diagnosis in two activities of daily living, using a performance-based assessment. Objectives To compare the functional performance of individuals with a dual-diagnosis, in grocery shopping and budgeting. Methods This descriptive cross-sectional study included ten participants with a dual-diagnosis of schizophrenia and substance-use disorder, aged 21 to 35, living independently in the community. They were evaluated on two tasks, budgeting and grocery shopping, using the Perceive-Recall-Plan-Perform (PRPP) system of task analysis (Chapparo & Ranka, 2005). The PRPP is a standardized criterion-referenced task-based assessment, and is valuable in describing individuals’ community functioning with regards to information-processing difficulties. Substance use was evaluated with the Addiction Severity Index (McLellan et al., 1989). Results Preliminary results indicate lower scores on both tasks, in the planning quadrant of the PRPP, particularly the evaluating sub-quadrant, which involves cognitive monitoring and appraisal processes. This trend occurs despite the participant's prior familiarity with tasks. Conclusions: This study is a first step in describing the functional performance of individuals with a dual diagnosis of schizophrenia and substance use in activities of daily living. This information will lead to improved rehabilitation for these clients.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".