Family cohesion and flexibility in early episode psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Research suggests that family support promotes recovery and is a key component of a successful early intervention programme. However, very little is known about family functioning in families that are coping with the onset of a psychotic illness and the factors that help to foster adaptive family functioning during this challenging time. The purpose of this study was to understand the individual, caregiver and family factors that are associated with adaptive family functioning in early episode psychosis. METHODS: An online survey with 107 family caregivers of an individual with early psychosis was used to examine relationships among various caregiver and family system variables such as caregiver appraisals, coping strategies, quality of life, perceived helpfulness of support systems and family functioning. Family functioning was assessed using a multi-dimensional approach and measured along dimensions of cohesion and flexibility. RESULTS: Family members of an individual with early psychosis reported more family difficulties across dimensions of cohesion and flexibility. Family members' cognitive appraisals about the illness, its consequences and one's caregiving role were significant predictors of wellbeing. Negative appraisals were strongly associated with lower caregiver quality of life, whereas the presence of positive coping strategies was associated with better caregiver quality of life. Finally, positive caregiver appraisals predicted adaptive family functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Family functioning is a complex and multi-faceted construct. The findings from this study have important implications for the field of early intervention in psychosis and could inform relevant treatment targets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".