Supporting patients by family education in psychotic illness: a longitudinal pre–post study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A lack of education, resources and support for family carers of young adults with psychotic illnesses leaves them ill-equipped to support their loved one. By equipping families with skills and knowledge, public healthcare harnesses a powerful ally to support community stabilisation. AIMS: The primary goal is to study the effect of a psychoeducation intervention for family carers supporting young adults with psychosis on family burden and stabilisation of service users. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A longitudinal quantitative study with a pre-post design will be used to assess the long-term effectiveness of the psychoeducation intervention for family carers supporting a young adult with psychosis. 111 family carers will be recruited for the intervention and measures will be taken from family carer participants and their matched young adult service users. Nine evidence and family peer-informed and expert-reviewed psychoeducation modules are administered in 2-hour sessions over 9 weeks to family carers. Functional index measures are administered preintervention, and at 6-month, 12-month and 24-month follow-up. Service utilisation will be measured during a 12-month period preintervention, a 12-month period postintervention and during a 12-24-month period post-intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Alberta Research Ethics Board (Pro00110691). This novel methodological approach to studying family psychoeducation interventions addresses unique methodological challenges and limitations and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and academic and medical conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05500001; National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.020 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".