“A sense of the bigger picture:” A qualitative analysis of follow-up interviews with people with bipolar disorder who self-reported psilocybin use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: People with bipolar disorder (BD) spend more time depressed than manic/hypomanic, and depression is associated with greater impairments in psychosocial functioning and quality of life than mania/hypomania. Emerging evidence suggests psilocybin, the psychoactive compound in "magic mushrooms," is a promising treatment for unipolar depression. Clinical trials of psilocybin therapy have excluded people with BD as a precaution against possible adverse effects (e.g., mania). Our study centered the experiences of adults living with BD who consumed psilocybin-containing mushrooms, and aimed to (1) understand its subjective impacts on BD symptoms, (2) deepen understanding of Phase I survey results, and (3) elucidate specific contextual factors associated with adverse reactions in naturalistic settings. METHODS: Following an international survey (Phase I), follow-up interviews were conducted with 15 respondents (Phase II) to further understand psilocybin use among adults with BD. As part of a larger mixed-methods explanatory sequential design study, reflexive thematic analysis was used to elaborate findings. RESULTS: Three major themes containing sub-themes were developed. (1) Mental Health Improvements: (1.1) decreased impact and severity of depression, (1.2) increased emotion processing, (1.3) development of new perspectives, and (1.4) greater relaxation and sleep. (2) Undesired Mental Health Impacts: (2.1) changes in sleep, (2.2) increased mania severity, (2.3) hospitalization, and (2.4) distressing sensory experiences. (3) Salient Contextual Factors for psilocybin use included: (3.1) poly-substance use and psilocybin dose, (3.2) solo versus social experiences, and (3.3) pre-psilocybin sleep deprivation. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate both benefits and risks of psilocybin use in this population. Carefully designed clinical trials focused on safety and preliminary efficacy are warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".