Peer‐driven family support services in the context of first‐episode psychosis: Participant perceptions from a Canadian early intervention programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper aims to advance our understanding of the experience of participating in peer support groups for family members of persons with psychosis and to expand the scant body of literature on peer support in the context of early intervention services for psychosis. Such an examination is relevant because the implementation and uptake of family-focused interventions remain inconsistent in early intervention services, despite their proven benefits. METHODS: To enable family caregivers to support one another, a family peer support project was initiated at an early intervention service for psychosis in Montreal, Canada. A family peer support provider and researchers collaboratively designed and conducted this study to examine the experience of those who participated in family peer support groups. Forty-four family members completed an English or French online questionnaire. Thematic analysis was used to code responses to open-ended questions to unpack crucial elements of this peer support intervention. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified-the impact of psychosis on families; understanding and coping with psychosis through family peer support; and improving family peer support services. Mutual support through sharing experiences; gains in knowledge of the illness and its treatment; emotional support; and increased caregiving and self-care capacities and skills were identified as critical benefits of family peer support. CONCLUSION: Family peer support can be an acceptable and cherished means of engaging and sustaining families and enhancing their caregiving skills. Its integration into early intervention services holds the promise of helping promote recovery and reducing caregiver burden.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".