Social and occupational recovery in early psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Psychosis, even in its early stages, ranks highly among the causes of disability worldwide, resulting in an increased focus on improved recovery of social and occupational functioning. This study aimed to provide an estimate of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for improving functioning in early psychosis. We also sought evidence of superiority between intervention approaches. Methods An electronic search was conducted using PubMed and PsycINFO to identify original articles reporting on trials of psychosocial interventions in early-stage psychosis, published up to December 2020 and is reported following PRISMA guidelines. Data were extracted on validated measures of functioning from included studies and pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) was estimated. Results In total, 31 studies involving 2811 participants were included, focusing on: cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp), family-based therapy, supported employment, cognitive remediation training (CRT) and multi-component psychosocial interventions. Across interventions, improved function was observed (SMD = 0.239; 95% confidence interval 0.115–0.364, p < 0.001). Effect sizes varied by intervention type, stage of illness, length and duration of treatment and outcome measure used. In particular, interventions based on CRT significantly outperformed symptom-focused CBT interventions, while multi-component interventions were associated with largest gains. Conclusions Psychosocial interventions, particularly when provided as part of a multi-component intervention model and delivered in community-based settings are associated with significant improvements in social and occupational function. This review underscores the value of sensitively tracking and targeting psychosocial function as part of the standard provided by early intervention services.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".