Shame among Forensic and Non-Forensic Patients and the Impact of the Social Determinants of Health: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shame is associated with various mental health and social difficulties. A broad range of social factors increase the risk of shame among individuals. One group that experiences increased shame due to their mental health diagnoses and criminal justice involvement is forensic patients. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare shame levels in forensic and non-forensic patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder, and to examine whether any social determinants of health impacted the levels of shame among both groups. A self-report shame questionnaire and a measure of experiences with various social determinants of health were completed by 43 patients with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder (22 forensic and 21 non-forensic patients). Statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in levels of shame between the forensic and non-forensic patients. Early life experience as well as employment and working conditions had the most significant impact on shame levels for both forensic and non-forensic patients. We also found a significant difference between forensic and non-forensic scores in employment and working conditions (p = .046), with forensic patients rating their experiences with this factor as more positive than non-forensic participants. Clinical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".