Understanding delay in treatment for first-episode psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A lengthy delay often occurs between the onset of symptoms of psychotic disorders and initiation of adequate treatment. In this paper we examine the extent to which this represents a delay in individuals contacting health professionals or a delay in receiving treatment once such contact is made. METHOD: Pathways to care were examined in 110 patients of the Prevention and Early Intervention Program for Psychosis in London, Canada. Data were collected using structured interviews with patients, family members, consultation with clinicians and review of case records. RESULTS: Family physicians and hospital emergency rooms were prominent components of pathways to care. Both delay to contact with a helping professional and delay from such contact to initiation of adequate treatment appear to be about equally important for the sample as a whole, but some individuals appear to be at risk for particularly lengthy delay in the second component. Individuals with younger age of onset, or who had initial contact with professional helpers before the onset of psychosis and were being seen on an ongoing basis at the time of onset of psychosis, had longer delays from first service contact after onset to initiation of adequate treatment. The greater delay to treatment for those being seen at the onset of psychosis does not appear to reflect differences in age, gender, symptoms, drug use or willingness to take medication. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to reduce treatment delay should increase the public's awareness of the symptoms of psychotic illness and the need to seek treatment, but of equal importance is the education of service providers to recognize such illness and the potential benefits of earlier intervention.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".