Participatory video as a novel recovery-oriented intervention in early psychosis: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Personal narrative plays an important role in the process of recovery from psychotic illnesses. Participatory video is a novel, active intervention that can be used as a tool for fostering narrative development among people with psychosis. AIM: To assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential clinical utility of participatory video as an innovative tool for promoting recovery in early psychosis. METHODS: Ten outpatients of an early psychosis intervention programme were recruited to participate in 13 biweekly workshops to plan, film and produce documentary-style videos of their experiences. Feasibility was measured through recruitment and retention. Acceptability was measured through workshop attendance and client satisfaction. Clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline, post intervention and 3 months post intervention. RESULTS: < .05) in tension, self-stigma and negative perceptions of hoped-for selves. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this pilot study suggest that participatory video is feasible and acceptable for individuals with early psychosis. This study also provides important pilot data supporting a larger trial investigating the effectiveness of participatory video as a recovery-oriented intervention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".