Romantic relationship group intervention for men with early psychosis: A feasibility, acceptability and potential impact pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential impact of a cognitive behavioural group intervention occurring over 12 sessions and focusing on romantic relationships for single men with early psychosis. METHODS: Recruitment, drop-out and participation rates were collected. An A-B-A within-subject design (n = 7), where each participant acted as his own control, was used to determine potential impact (on social functioning, romantic relationship functioning, self-esteem, theory of mind [ToM] and self-stigma) across time (six time points). RESULTS: Feasibility and acceptability were established. As for the potential impact of the intervention, participants did not all evolve the same way. Improvements were found on social functioning ("behaviours" subscale), romantic relationship functioning and ToM ("mentalizing" subscale). CONCLUSIONS: More studies are warranted to expand on these results and to further help men with early psychosis in their social and romantic development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".