Canadian Practice Guidelines for Comprehensive Community Treatment for Schizophrenia and Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to identify the features and components of a comprehensive system of services for people living with schizophrenia. A comprehensive system was conceived as one that served the full range of people with schizophrenia and was designed with consideration of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia. The system should provide access to the full range of evidence-based services, should be recovery oriented, and should provide patient-centred care. METHOD: A systematic search was conducted for published guidelines for schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The guidelines were rated by at least 2 raters, and recommendations adopted were primarily drawn from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2014) Guideline on Psychosis and Schizophrenia in adults and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidelines on management of schizophrenia. RESULTS: The recommendations adapted for Canada cover the range of services required to provide comprehensive services. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive services for people with schizophrenia can be organized and delivered to improve the quality of life of people with schizophrenia and their carers. The services need to be organized in a system that provides access to those who need them.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".