Perceptions of family functioning in adolescents who self‐harm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the self‐reported family functioning of 21 adolescents presenting at four UK medical wards with self‐harming behaviour with those obtained from a sample of adolescents drawn from the local community. Adolescents hospitalized for self‐harm reported that their families were more dysfunctional than healthy controls on the family perceptions scale. However, this difference was not observed when covariates such as emotional and behavioural distress were controlled for. Poor levels of agreement between adolescents and adult family members in relation to family perceptions were also observed. The findings suggest that adolescents who engage in significant self‐harm perceive impairments in their family functioning. These reported impairments may be the result of concurrent emotional and behavioural distress or some form of interaction between family functioning and distress. A comprehensive family assessment to detect absolute changes and disparities in perceived family functioning may therefore help guide family interventions in this context. Practitioner points Adolescents who are hospitalized for self‐harm report significant impairments in family functioning compared with healthy controls. Adolescent and adult family members appear to disagree on the degree of impaired family functioning. A comprehensive family assessment may therefore help guide family interventions in hospitalized adolescents.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".