Recovery Following Peer and Text Messaging Support After Discharge From Acute Psychiatric Care in Edmonton, Alberta: Controlled Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer support is an emotional, social, and practical help provided by nonprofessionals to assist others in sustaining health behaviors. Peer support is valued in recovery-oriented models of mental health and is becoming increasingly implemented at the organizational level. Text messaging is a relatively low-cost, high-impact, and easily scalable program that uses existing technology, is devoid of geographic barriers, and is easily accessible to end users. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an innovative peer support system plus a supportive text messaging program on the recovery of discharged patients from acute psychiatric care. METHODS: This prospective, rater blinded, controlled observational study included 181 patients who were discharged from acute psychiatric care. Patients were randomized to one of four conditions: treatment as usual (follow-up care), daily supportive text messages only, peer support only, or peer support plus daily supportive text messages. A standardized self-report measure of recovery (Recovery Assessment Scale [RAS]) was completed at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Descriptive analysis, one-way analysis of variance, and repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance were used to examine the changes in the RAS among the study groups and over the follow-up time points. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients completed the assessments at each time point. For the overall sample, higher scores were found for the peer support plus text message condition compared with the text message only and treatment as usual condition on several scales (ie, willingness to ask for help and personal confidence and hope) and total score on the RAS, after 6 months of intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support plus supportive text messaging seems to result in improved recovery compared with other interventions. It may be advisable to incorporate the two interventions as part of routine practice for patients with psychiatric disorders upon hospital discharge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".