A pilot study of a family cognitive adaptation training guide for individuals with schizophrenia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of accessible, evidence-based tools for caregivers of individuals with schizophrenia. This study examines changes in the self-assessed and caregiver-assessed outcomes of people with schizophrenia after exposure to a cognitive adaptation training (CAT) guide that addressed pragmatic, in-home approaches to offset the cognitive impacts of the illness. METHOD: This study examined the 4-month, pre-post outcomes of a CAT guide, as compared with a popular, general manual, for families of individuals with schizophrenia. A total of 17 caregiver-supported individual dyads completed all measures, having been randomized to either a CAT-guide group or a support-manual group. Measures included medication adherence, adaptive functioning, quality of life, and caregiver burden. Semistructured interviews assessed use and utility questions. RESULTS: Caregiver-assessed improvements in community functioning with medium-high effect sizes were observed in both study conditions. Self-report ratings by supported individuals did not change from baseline to 4 months and no change was observed in medication adherence or quality of life for either condition. Caregiver-burden ratings significantly declined with a large effect size, again with no difference as a function of manual type. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These findings suggest that there is some promise in providing families with evidence-based information in manual form. Further research informed by this study's findings should include assessments of whether and how environmental cognitive supports can be of specific benefit to families affected by schizophrenia. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".