Psychosis in adolescence: A prognosis or a diagnosis? Integrated treatment with psychodynamic peer support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Our work comprises an integrated intervention strategy for the treatment of psychotic manifestations and functioning in adolescents which, following the theories of Laufer and Chan, questions the usefulness of the diagnosis ‘psychotic’ during adolescence. We apply an “open light treatment” (IPOLT), which includes psychodynamically oriented peer-support. Objectives To build a new form of therapeutic alliance with peer-support based on shared real life experiences enabling adolescents to reintegrate within their environment and re-establish cognitive functioning which has become disorganised, aiding a gradual return of the cohesion of ego and self and in some cases, cessation of psychotic symptoms. Methodology An observational study of one year on a group of ten adolescents aged 17 to 20 in institutional and private settings with psychotic manifestations and functioning. The group were tested at the start and end of the study using WAIS-IV and MMPI-A. Results The adolescents recruited showed a faster recovery of the cohesive processes of their fragmented ego as well as a quicker resumption of social relations. Our model provided an organising function and a flexible yet secure ‘container’ (Bion, 1988) for the young people's psychic structure. The tests showed a demonstrable improvement in their verbal comprehension, visual-spazial reasoning, fluid reasoning, working memory and processing speed. Conclusions Psychotic manifestations occurring in adolescence may decrease with an immediate integrated and rehabilitative intervention, without need of an institutional psychiatric setting. In conclusion, we find that “psychosis” in adolescence is a prognosis and not a diagnosis. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".