A randomized trial of family focused therapy with populations at clinical high risk for psychosis: Effects on interactional behavior.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether family focused therapy (FFT-CHR), an 18-session intervention that consisted of psychoeducation and training in communication and problem solving, brought about greater improvements in family communication than enhanced care (EC), a 3-session psychoeducational intervention, among individuals at clinical high risk for developing psychosis. METHOD: This study was conducted within a randomized controlled trial across 8 sites. We examined 10-min problem-solving discussions at baseline and 6-month reassessment among 66 adolescents and young adults and their parents. Trained coders who were blind to treatment and time of assessment achieved high levels of interrater reliability when evaluating family discussions on categories of calm-constructive and critical-conflictual behavior. RESULTS: Individuals at high risk and their family members who participated in FFT-CHR demonstrated greater improvement from baseline to 6-month reassessment in constructive communication and decreases in conflictual behaviors during family interactions than those in EC. Participants in FFT-CHR showed greater increases from baseline to 6 months in active listening and calm communication and greater decreases in irritability and anger, complaints and criticism, and off-task comments compared to participants in EC. These changes occurred equally in high-risk participants and their family members. CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month family skills training treatment can bring about significant improvement in family communication among individuals at high risk for psychosis and their parents. Future studies should examine the association between enhancements in family communication and reduced risk for the onset of psychosis among individuals at high risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".