Group Cognitive Behavior Therapy or Social Skills Training for Individuals With a Recent Onset of Psychosis?
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 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".