A pilot study of participatory video in early psychosis: Qualitative findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For people with psychotic disorders, developing a personal narrative about one's experiences with psychosis can help promote recovery. This pilot study examined participants' reactions to and experiences of participatory video as an intervention to help facilitate recovery-oriented narrative development in early psychosis. Outpatients of an early psychosis intervention program were recruited to participate in workshops producing short documentary-style videos of their collective and individual experiences. Six male participants completed the program and took part in a focus group upon completion and in an individual semistructured interview three months later. Themes were identified from the focus group and interviews and then summarized for descriptive purposes. Prominent themes included impacts of the videos on the participants and perceived impacts on others, fulfilment from sharing experiences and expressing oneself, value of collaboration and cohesion in a group, acquiring interpersonal and technological skills, and recommendations for future implementation. Findings of this study suggest that participatory video is an engaging means of self-definition and self-expression among young people in recovery from early psychosis.
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 | 0.047 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".