La thérapie cognitivo-comportementale des psychoses en début d'évolution: étude ouverte en milieu clinique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis results confirm that cognitive-behavioural therapy in psychosis (CBTp) is efficient for persistent symptoms. However, external validity remains unexplored. CBTp in early psychosis (in the first 5 years after diagnosis) seems especially relevant, given a possible impact on long-term course. However, the few studies that experimented with CBTp with this population had poor results. They all introduced therapy during an acute psychotic phase and most of them performed a limited number of sessions. Therefore, our introductory open study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of a 25-session Australian CBTp program, introduced during a stable phase in Quebec patients with early psychosis. METHOD: The Active Cognitive Psychotherapy for Early Psychosis program was offered to 20 patients aged 14 years or older, at a rate of 1 weekly session during 6 months. RESULTS: The acceptance rate was 75%, the mean session compliance rate was 84%, and participants were satisfied with the program. Pre- and post-CBTp analyses indicated statistically significant improvements of psychotic symptomatology, which were maintained at 6-month follow-up. Self-criticism improvement was also statistically significant, post-CBTp. CONCLUSION: CBTp seems to be appropriate in our clinical settings, including with adolescents. Moreover, the treatment dosage used seems to foster session compliance.
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 | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".