Activity and Social Participation in the Period following a First Episode of Psychosis and Implications for Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The study advances a conceptual understanding of activity and social participation in the period following the first episode of psychosis. Method: A constructivist, grounded theory approach was used. Data were collected from 25 primary participants who had experienced a first episode of psychosis in the previous 5 years; 15 secondary participants, such as family and friends, with knowledge of the activity and social experiences of primary participants, personal records and documents; and six key informants. Findings: The first episode of psychosis was highly disruptive and even damaging to activity and social participation. Recovering from this fall-out, to maintain engagement in activities and social participation, included the need to create new plans, adjust to affective disconnection, develop balanced lifestyles, match participation to abilities, learn new skills, and participate under new and constraining social conditions. Conclusion: The period following the first episode of psychosis is a time of high risk for disengagement from activity and social participation. Occupational therapists have an important role to play in enabling activity and social engagement. The findings offer examples of how occupational therapy services might address critical tasks for activity and social engagement.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".