Blended Digital and Face-to-Face Care for First-Episode Psychosis Treatment in Young People: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A small number of studies have found that digital mental health interventions can be feasible and acceptable for young people experiencing first-episode psychosis; however, little research has examined how they might be blended with face-to-face approaches in order to enhance care. Blended treatment refers to the integration of digital and face-to-face mental health care. It has the potential to capitalize on the evidence-based features of both individual modalities, while also exceeding the sum of its parts. This integration could bridge the online-offline treatment divide and better reflect the interconnected, and often complementary, ways young people navigate their everyday digital and physical lives. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to gain young people's perspectives on the design and implementation of a blended model of care in first-episode psychosis treatment. METHODS: This qualitative study was underpinned by an end-user development framework and was based on semistructured interviews with 10 participants aged 19 to 28 (mean 23.4, SD 2.62). A thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Three superordinate themes emerged relating to young people's perspectives on the design and implementation of a blended model of care in first-episode psychosis treatment: (1) blended features, (2) cautions, and (3) therapeutic alliance. CONCLUSIONS: We found that young people were very enthusiastic about the prospect of blended models of mental health care, in so far as it was used to enhance their experience of traditional face-to-face treatment but not to replace it overall. Aspects of blended treatment that could enhance clinical care were readily identified by young people as increasing accessibility, continuity, and consolidation; accessing posttherapy support; strengthening the relationship between young person and clinician; and tracking personal data that could be used to better inform clinical decision making. Future research is needed to investigate the efficacy of blended models of care by evaluating its impact on the therapeutic alliance, clinical and social outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and engagement.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".