MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3027426294 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbaa030.350

M38. PATIENT-PERSPECTIVE: NEED FOR CARE AFTER A FIRST PSYCHOSIS

2020· article· en· W3027426294 on OpenAlexaff
Inge M. W. van der Heijden‐Hobus, Inge van der Heijden-Hobus, Bram‐Sieben Rosema, Jacob Vorstman, Martien J. Kas, Marieke Begemann, Martijn Kikkert, Iris E. Sommer

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMental Health and Psychiatry
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosisSet (abstract data type)Perspective (graphical)PsychiatryPsychologyMental healthQualitative researchMedicineEarly psychosisMental health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Only little is information is available about the needs and preferences regarding care and treatment of people who are going through a psychosis for the first time. A first psychotic episode is often an intense experience, which may not directly be recognized as a mental health problem. Given the unfamiliarity with the available options of care, it probably differs from subsequent psychoses. In order to design first psychosis programs to optimally meet patients preferences, we need to learn the care needs of these usually young people. Furthermore, peoples’ needs during the first psychosis, and the need for care after a psychotic episode have to be explored, in order to be able picking up life again after complete or incomplete remission. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with people (n = 20) who are in complete or partial remission after their first psychosis about their personal care needs. Interviews were conducted by an experience expert and a researcher together and lasted between 1 and 3 hours. Interviews were non-structured, but a basic set of 5 topics was used. Results Preliminary results of the interviews conducted so far (n = 14) show that people with a first psychosis have a great need for information about the symptoms they are suffering from. In addition, they believe that medication is an important ‘cornerstone’ to get rid of their symptoms. Furthermore, nearly all participants hope to be able to stop medication in the near future. Admission to a ward is in most cases experienced as frightening. One person indicated that the tranquility during admission was very welcome. At this stage, experience experts are not being reached out to yet, nor is there a clear need for social work in this stage of the disease. During and shortly after their first psychosis, the interviewees especially appreciate the support of family and close friends. Discussion Clear information about a first psychosis was mentioned as the first need. Family and close friends are most appreciated as “auxiliary troops”. Family support is therefore an important contributor in care for patients suffering from psychosis. Medication was appreciated as an important cornerstone, but only to induce remission, not as a mean for maintenance treatment. Admission was by most patients experienced as stressful. Additional research is recommended to further map what information this should be exactly, and how to bring it to the patient and his relatives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia BulletinSame topicMental Health and PsychiatryFrench-language works237,207