ED to EPI: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of an SMS (text) messaging intervention to improve the transition from the emergency department to early psychosis intervention for young people with psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While nearly half of all new psychotic disorders are diagnosed in the emergency department (ED), most young people who present to the ED with psychosis do not receive timely follow-up with a psychiatrist, and even fewer with evidence-based early psychosis intervention (EPI) services. We aim to test an intervention delivered using short message service (SMS), a low-cost, low-complexity, youth-friendly approach, to improve transitions from the ED to EPI services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a pragmatic randomised, single blind, controlled trial with accompanying economic and qualitative evaluations conducted at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Canada. A consecutive series of 186 participants aged 16-29 referred by the ED to CAMH's EPI programme will be recruited for a trial of a two-way intervention involving reminders, psychoeducation and check-ins delivered via SMS. The primary outcome will be attendance at the first consultation appointment within 30 days of study enrolment assessed through chart reviews in the electronic health record. We will also extract routine clinical measures, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression and Service Engagement Scale, and link with provincial health administrative data to examine system-level outcomes, including ED visits and psychiatric hospitalisations, 6 months and up to 2 years after baseline. We will perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the primary study outcome and costs incurred, calculating an incremental cost effectiveness ratio. Web-based surveys and qualitative interviews will explore intervention user experience. Patients and families with lived experience will be engaged in all aspects of the project. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Board approval has been obtained. Findings will be reported in scientific journal articles and shared with key stakeholders including youth, family members, knowledge users and decision makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04298450.
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 | 0.063 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.021 |
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".