A descriptive review of qualitative studies in first episode psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this paper is to provide a descriptive review of published qualitative research studies on first episode psychosis (FEP). METHODS: A review was undertaken to describe the findings of qualitative studies in early psychosis. Keyword searches in Medline, CINAHL, ASSIA, PsychINFO databases, as well as manual searches of other relevant journals and reference lists of primary papers, were conducted. RESULTS: Thirty-one qualitative papers (representing 27 discrete studies) were identified. The majority reported research concerning young people based in community settings. The research studies were organized according to the following generic social processes: (i) achieving identity; (ii) acquiring perspectives; (iii) doing activity; and, (iv) experiencing relationships. The papers reviewed are based on first-person accounts obtained from individuals who have experienced FEP, their family members and service providers. CONCLUSION: This descriptive review contributes to our understanding of the complex social processes of achieving identity, acquiring perspectives, doing activities and developing relationships as experienced by young people and the significant others in their world. The cumulative findings highlight the contextually rich and detailed information made possible through qualitative studies of FEP. They begin to account for the active engagement of individuals affected by psychosis in making sense of their experience and suggest that this experience should be understood from within young people's own framework of meaning.
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 | 0.027 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".