Development and implementation of fidelity assessment in first episode psychosis services in Czechia: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate fidelity in first episode psychosis (FEP) teams in Czechia and to gage the feasibility and utility of the process in a mental health system that is undergoing a transformation. METHODS: Fidelity assessment was conducted using The First Episode Psychosis Services Fidelity Scale (FEPS-FS). Fidelity assessment was based on a review of data abstracted from the health records of active clients, program documents, administrative data, and interviews with members of staff. The mean scores were compared across the teams. Feasibility and utility were assessed by program response to their fidelity results. RESULTS: Three FEP teams were involved in the fidelity assessment. Across the 35 items, the mean fidelity score ranged from 2.5 to 3.1. Across the FEP teams, the percentage of the 35 items rated as 4 or 5 (satisfactory or exemplary) ranged from 34.3% to 51.4%. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided an opportunity to implement FEPS-FS and assess fidelity in FEP teams in Czechia. The fidelity assessment also provided a baseline for measuring change.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".