Pervasive developmental disorder and early intervention in psychosis services: a survey of care coordinators' experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the experience of care coordinators encountering clients with co-morbid diagnoses or features of pervasive development disorder (PDD) in an Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) service. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a semi-structured face-to-face interview schedule. RESULTS: Thirty-three care coordinators were interviewed. One-third of the care coordinators had previously encountered at least one client with a co-morbid diagnosis of PDD, with the majority feeling confident that they could recognize the features of the syndrome. The estimated reported prevalence of diagnosed PDD in this group was around 4-5%, although social and communication impairments were regularly encountered in clients by at least a quarter of the clinicians interviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Social and communication problems are commonly observed by clinicians in this population and some may represent the presence of a co-morbid PDD. Further efforts should be made to better identify and support this sub-population of EIP clients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".