The experiences of Australian parents with psychosis: The second Australian national survey of psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Being a parent is an important part of one's identity and role. Previous research outlines many challenges associated with parenting by people with severe mental illness. However, there is a limited research describing parenting experiences of mothers and fathers who have psychosis. METHOD: The second Australian national survey of psychosis recruited 1825 people living with symptoms of, or a diagnosis of, psychosis. The survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews and included key clinical and demographic information, as well as parenting specific information. RESULTS: Over half of all women and a quarter of men were parents. Almost a quarter of women but only 5.5% of the men had dependent children (own and/or stepchildren) living at home with them. Of parents with dependent children, the most common diagnosis was schizophrenia (48.2% fathers, 28.9% mothers), and there were high rates of comorbidity with substance abuse/dependence (alcohol: fathers 69.2%, mothers 44.3%; cannabis: fathers 69.22%, mothers 47.8%). A substantial proportion of parents with dependent children experienced challenges including low educational attainment, unemployment, poverty, and social isolation. Although many parents living with dependent children functioned in the average range, a significant proportion was moderately to severely disabled on global independent functioning ratings (fathers 49.1%, mothers 35.7%) and some were identified as having obvious/severe impairments in their ability to care for their child(ren) (fathers 28.3%, mothers 21.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Most parents living with psychosis function well. However, a significant proportion has impairments in parenting and general functioning that could have adverse consequences for both the parent and children. This study brings into focus the need for interventions to optimise successful parenting outcomes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".