Who Benefits the Most from Psychiatric Day Hospitals? A Comparison of Three Clinical Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparison of the effects of psychiatric day hospital programs between homogenous clinical groups is an important issue that requires more attention. One group of day hospital patients who have not been included in most studies are people with cluster B personality disorders. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and social participation outcomes in three groups of individuals treated in a psychiatric day hospital: patients with psychotic disorders, patients with mood and anxiety disorders, and patients with cluster B personality disorders. A pre-experimental, pre-test post-test design was used. During the first and last week of treatment, as well as 6 months after discharge, 20 participants in each group completed questionnaires on severity of symptoms, distress, accomplishment, satisfaction with social participation, and self-esteem. During the intervention, there was significant improvement in all groups on all variables, except for self-esteem in people with psychotic disorders, which remained stable. The patients with psychotic disorders showed significantly less improvement than the two other groups in severity of symptoms, distress, and self-esteem. Following discharge, the degree of change was comparable in the three groups on all variables based on between-groups analyses. However, based on within-group analyses, patients in the mood and anxiety disorders group continued to show significant improvement over time after discharge on self-esteem, accomplishment, and satisfaction with social participation, while no significant changes were seen in the other two groups. Although all three clinical groups made significant gains during their participation at the day hospital and maintained these gains after discharge, those with mood and anxiety disorders benefited the most from their day hospital experience.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".