Patterns of Primary Care Use Prior to a First Diagnosis of Nonaffective Psychotic Disorder in Ontario, Canada: Modèles d’utilisation des soins de première ligne avant un premier diagnostic de trouble psychotique non affectif en Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many people experience early signs and symptoms before the onset of psychotic disorder, suggesting that there may be help-seeking prior to first diagnosis. The family physician has been found to play a key role in pathways to care. This study examined patterns of primary care use preceding a first diagnosis of psychotic disorder. METHODS: We used health administrative data from Ontario (Canada) to construct a population-based retrospective cohort. We investigated patterns of primary care use, including frequency and timing of contacts, in the 6 years prior to a first diagnosis of psychosis, relative to a general population comparison group matched on age, sex, geographic area, and index date. We used latent class growth modeling to identify distinct trajectories of primary care service use, and associated factors, preceding the first diagnosis. RESULTS: People with early psychosis contacted primary care over twice as frequently in the 6 years preceding first diagnosis (RR = 2.22; 95% CI, = 2.19 to 2.25), relative to the general population, with a sharp increase in contacts 10 months prior to diagnosis. They had higher contact frequency across nearly all diagnostic codes, including mental health, physical health, and preventative health. We identified 3 distinct service use trajectories: low-, medium-, and high-increasing usage. DISCUSSION: We found elevated patterns of primary care service use prior to first diagnosis of psychotic disorder, suggesting that initiatives to support family physicians in their role on the pathway to care are warranted. Earlier intervention has implications for improved social, educational, and professional development in young people with first-episode psychosis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".