Interventions and social functioning in youth at risk of psychosis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Youth at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis often exhibit difficulties in social functioning and poorer social functioning may be predictive of transition to a psychotic disorder. Therefore, the primary objective of this systematic review was to summarize the impact of all interventions on social functioning in CHR samples. METHOD: Electronic databases PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, EBM, and MEDLINE were searched from 1951 to June 2017. Studies were selected if they included any intervention that reported changes in social functioning in youth at CHR. Data were evaluated using random effects pairwise meta-analyses, stratified by time, and reported as the standardized mean difference (SMD). RESULTS: Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria, including a total of 1513 CHR participants. The mean age was 20.5 years and 47% were male. Cognitive behavioural therapy (4 studies) did not significantly improve social functioning at 6 months (SMD = 0.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.35, 0.46), 12 months (SMD = -0.15; 95% CI = -0.38, 0.08) and 18 months (SMD = 0.20; 95% CI = -0.10, 0.50). Omega-3 (2 studies) did not significantly improve social functioning at 6 months (SMD = 0.01; 95% CI = -0.21, 0.24) and 12 months (SMD = -0.08; 95% CI = -0.33, 0.17). Lastly, cognitive remediation (3 studies) did not significantly improve social functioning at 2- to 3-month follow-up (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI = -0.18, 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that no treatment significantly improved social functioning in youth at CHR. Future randomized control trials are required that are designed to target and improve social functioning in youth at CHR for psychosis.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".