Positive Emotions Program for Schizophrenia (PEPS): a pilot intervention to reduce anhedonia and apathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent literature has distinguished the negative symptoms associated with a diminished capacity to experience (apathy, anhedonia) from symptoms associated with a limited capacity for expression (emotional blunting, alogia). The apathy-anhedonia syndrome tends to be associated with a poorer prognosis than the symptoms related to diminished expression. The efficacy of drug-based treatments and psychological interventions for these symptoms in schizophrenia remains limited. There is a clear clinical need for new treatments. METHODS: This pilot study tested the feasibility of a program to reduce anhedonia and apathy in schizophrenia and assessed its impact on 37 participants meeting the ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders. Participants were pre- and post-tested using the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS). They took part in eight sessions of the Positive Emotions Program for Schizophrenia (PEPS)--an intervention that teaches participants skills to help overcome defeatist thinking and to increase the anticipation and maintenance of positive emotions. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants completed the program; those who dropped out did not differ from completers. Participation in the program was accompanied by statistically significant reductions in the total scores for Avolition-Apathy and Anhedonia-Asociality on the SANS, with moderate effect sizes. Furthermore, there was a statistically significant reduction of depression on the CDSS, with a large effect size. Emotional blunting and alogia remain stable during the intervention. DISCUSSION: Findings indicate that PEPS is both a feasible intervention and is associated with an apparently specific reduction of anhedonia and apathy. However, these findings are limited by the absence of control group and the fact that the rater was not blind to the treatment objectives. CONCLUSIONS: PEPS is a promising intervention to improve anhedonia and apathy which need to be tested further in a controlled study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN74048461, registered 18 may 2015.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".