Client and key worker ratings of need in first‐episode psychosis early intervention programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to fill a gap in the literature by examining agreement on need as rated by clients and their key workers from first-episode psychosis early intervention programmes. Compared with adult populations and more chronic courses of illness, these clients may have unique needs given the onset of their illness in adolescence or early adulthood. METHODS: Needs agreement between clients and key workers was assessed using the Camberwell Assessment of Need in a sample of 188 client-key worker pairs recruited from six early intervention programmes in Ontario, Canada. Ratings were assessed with percentage agreement and prevalence-adjusted Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: At the aggregate level, both clients and key workers rated a mean of 2.6 unmet needs. Compared with other diagnoses, key workers rated significantly more unmet need in clients with primary psychotic disorders. Agreement between individual client and key worker ratings was highest (adjusted κ > 0.85) in the domains of telephone, risk to others, child care and accommodation. Lowest agreement (adjusted κ < 0.4) was found in the domains of psychological distress, sexual expression, company, daytime activities and intimate relationships. CONCLUSIONS: While congruence is present in concrete domains, there is substantial variability in how clients and their key workers perceive need in more personal areas. The initial focus of care may necessarily be on needs such as shelter, food and treatment; however, subsequent care should incorporate a shared assessment of need to support strong relationships with providers and ongoing engagement in treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".