Patient satisfaction with random assignment to extended early intervention for psychosis vs regular care: Relationship with service engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We investigated whether individuals varied in their satisfaction with being randomized to an extension of early intervention (EI) for psychosis or regular care after 2 years of EI, and whether satisfaction was associated with service engagement 3 years later. Methods Following randomization, patients (N = 220) indicated if they were happy with, unhappy or indifferent to their group assignment. Follow‐up with service providers was recorded monthly. Results Patients randomized to extended EI were more likely to express satisfaction with their group assignment than those in the regular care group (88.2% vs 31.5%, χ2 = 49.96, P < .001). In the extended EI group, those happy with their assigned group were likelier to continue seeing their case manager for the entire five‐year period than those who were unhappy/indifferent (χ2 = 5.61, P = .030). Conclusions Perceptions about EI, indicated by satisfaction with being assigned to extended EI, may have lasting effects on service 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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".