“Worried about relapse”: Family members’ experiences and perspectives of relapse in first‐episode psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding on the subject of relapse from the perspectives of family members of young people receiving services for a first-episode psychosis (FEP). METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach, using focus group methods, was used to elicit experiences, understandings, and knowledge of relapse in FEP. Family members were recruited from 4 specialized early intervention programmes for psychosis in Canada. A total of 24 (6 male, 18 female) family members participated in the study. Thematic analysis was used to examine the data. RESULTS: The core underlying theme in all focus groups was worrying about relapse, which was often accompanied by significant levels of fear and anxiety, and was influenced by: (1) impact of an episode of psychosis; (2) limited confidence in recognizing and coping with relapse; (3) unmet needs for coping skills and emotional support and (4) unmet needs regarding frequency and continuity of communication with clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Family members' unmet needs for relapse-focused education, support and communication with service providers and peers, can have a negative impact on relapse prevention. Addressing family members' education and support needs in a tailored manner (including preferences for types of peer support) can contribute positively to their confidence and ability to recognize and respond to relapse. This can help reduce fear and anxieties about relapse, and positively influence the ability to function as caregivers. Future research should focus on best approaches for providing education, sustained contact with the clinical team and family peer support.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".