A Mindfulness Based Support Group for Families in Early Psychosis: A pilot qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives To explore a mindfulness-based support group for parents of young people in care for a first episode of psychosis with an Early Intervention Service (EIS). Material and Methods Family members in EIS were recruited for a one year research protocol with 8 group sessions during which mindfulness practices were introduced. Participants were supported in developing an ongoing mindfulness practice. Focus groups and individual interviews provided data for qualitative analysis of participant experience. Results Participants reported that mindfulness practice was associated with (1) a greater sense of ease, (2) increased awareness, (3) less emotional reactivity, and (4) improved interpersonal relationships. Factors involved in developing a sustained mindfulness practice included the age and stage of illness of the offspring, the stage of family development and prior exposure to mindfulness. Conclusions Sustained mindfulness practice, developed in the context of a mindfulness-based family support group, can provide support in regard to coping and communication for parents of young people in care for a first episode of psychosis. Further exploration of the use of mindfulness to support families encountering mental illness seems warranted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".