TechCare: mobile assessment and therapy for psychosis – an intervention for clients in the Early Intervention Service: A feasibility study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Technological advances in healthcare have shown promise when delivering interventions for mental health problems such as psychosis. The aim of this project is to develop a mobile phone intervention for people with psychosis and to conduct a feasibility study of the TechCare App. METHODS: The TechCare App will assess participant's symptoms and respond with a personalised guided self-help-based psychological intervention with the aim of exploring feasibility and acceptability. The project will recruit 16 service users and 8-10 health professionals from the Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust Early Intervention Service. RESULTS: In strand 1 of the study, we will invite people to discuss their experience of psychosis and give their opinions on the existing evidence-based treatment (cognitive behavioural therapy) and how the mobile app can be developed. In strand 2, we will complete a test run with a small number of participants (n = 4) to refine the mobile intervention (TechCare). Finally, in strand 3 of the study, the TechCare App will be examined in a feasibility study with 12 participants. CONCLUSION: It has been suggested that there is a need for a rapid increase in the efforts to develop the evidence base for the clinical effectiveness of digital technologies, considering mHealth research can potentially be helpful in addressing the demand on mental health services globally.
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 | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.009 |
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".