The relationship between childhood trauma and adult psychosis in a UK Early Intervention Service: results of a retrospective case note study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: There is evidence that childhood trauma is a risk factor for the development of psychosis and it is recommended that childhood trauma is inquired about in all patients presenting with psychosis. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of childhood trauma in patients in the UK Early Intervention Service based on a case note review. METHODS: This is a retrospective case note study of 296 patients in an UK Early Intervention Service. Trauma history obtained on service entry was reviewed and trauma experienced categorized. Results were analyzed using crosstab and frequency analysis. RESULTS: The mean age of the sample was 24 years, 70% were male, 66% were White, and 23% Asian (ethnicity not documented in 11% of the sample). Approximately 60% of patients reported childhood trauma, 21% reported no childhood trauma, and data were not recorded for the remaining 19%. Among those reporting trauma, the prevalence of most frequently reported traumas were: severe or repeated disruption (21%), parental mental illness (19%), bullying (18%), absence of a parent (13%), and 'other' trauma (24%) - the majority of which were victimization events. Sixty-six percent of those reporting trauma had experienced multiple forms of trauma. CONCLUSION: A high prevalence of childhood trauma (particularly trauma related to the home environment or family unit) was reported. This is consistent with other studies reporting on trauma and psychosis. The main weakness of the study is a lack of a control group reporting experience of childhood trauma in those without psychosis. Guidelines recommend that all patients with psychosis are asked about childhood trauma; but in 19% of our sample there was no documentation that this had been done indicating the need for improvement in assessment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".