Group Cognitive Behavior Therapy or Social Skills Training for Individuals With a Recent Onset of Psychosis?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at determining the effectiveness of group cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for recent onset psychosis in comparison with a recognized intervention for individuals with severe mental illness-social skills training. One hundred twenty-nine participants took part in a single-blind randomized controlled trial with repeated measures (baseline, 3 months, and 9 months). Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: group CBT, group social skills training for symptom management, or a wait-list control group. Both interventions were delivered by mental health staff with minimal training. Both treatments resulted in improvements on positive and negative symptoms compared with the wait-list control group, with the CBT group having significant effects over time on overall symptoms, and post-treatment effects on self-esteem, and active coping skills compared with the wait-list control group and lower drop-out rates than the skills training group. Therapist fidelity was adequate for both treatment conditions. Group CBT for psychosis is a promising intervention for individuals with recent onset of psychosis and their mental health professionals.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it