Specialized home treatment versus hospital‐based outpatient treatment for first‐episode psychosis: a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study compared the effectiveness of specialized care that was home based versus hospital based for individuals experiencing their first psychotic episode. METHOD: A randomized controlled trial design was used. A total of 29 subjects were interviewed at baseline, 3 and 9 months. Repeated measures analysis of variance was employed to test for statistically significant changes over time within and between groups with regard to community psychosocial functioning and symptom severity. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that subjects in both the home-based and hospital-based programmes significantly improved with regard to symptoms and community functioning over time. However, the rates of change over time were not significantly different between the two programmes. There was a statistically significant difference between programmes with regard to the proportion of subjects with less than two visits (i.e. either did not attend their first assessment or attended follow-up visits after their assessment). CONCLUSIONS: This was a modest pilot study and the sample was too small to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn. However, the results raise questions about differences in initial treatment engagement. They suggest the need for additional research focusing on interventions that promote initial treatment seeking.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".