Including Integrated Psychological Treatment as Part of Standard Medical Therapy for Patients With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess the clinical outcomes associated with the inclusion of Integrated Psychological Treatment (IPT) standard medical therapy in nine regular clinical settings, nine clinical teams integrated the complete IPT program (six hierarchically arranged subprograms) with their respective standard medical therapies for outpatients with schizophrenia. A total of 90 patients, young adults to long-term mentally ill patients, participated in the program. Patients were evaluated using standardized instruments at four time points: (1) prior to including the IPT program, (2) after the first three IPT subprograms, (3) at the end of IPT, and (4) 3 to 4 months post-IPT. The IPT program was associated with positive results. Patients improved in terms of overall symptoms, subjective experiences, cognitive and social functioning, and quality of life. IPT is one of the most up-to-date programs to address the rehabilitation needs of persons suffering from schizophrenia. Our experience in nine clinical settings suggests that IPT can successfully be included as part of standard medical therapy in the rehabilitation of patients with schizophrenia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".