Personal preferences for treatment and care during and after a First Episode Psychosis: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: A first episode of psychosis (FEP) is a stressful, often life-changing experience. Scarce information is available about personal preferences regarding their care needs during and after a FEP. Whereas a more thorough understanding of these preferences is essential to aid shared decision-making during treatment and improve treatment satisfaction. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews with participants in remission of a FEP were set up, addressing personal preferences and needs for care during and after a FEP. The interviews were conducted by a female and a male researcher, the latter being an expert with lived experience. RESULTS: Twenty individuals in remission of a FEP were interviewed, of which 16 had been hospitalized. The distinguished themes based on personal preferences were tranquillity, peace and quietness, information, being understood, support from significant others, and practical guidance in rebuilding one's life. Our findings revealed that the need for information and the need to be heard were often not sufficiently met. For 16/20 participants, the tranquillity of inpatient treatment of the FEP was predominantly perceived as a welcome safe haven. The presence and support of family and close friends were mentioned as an important factor in the process of achieving remission. CONCLUSIONS: The current exploratory study showed that patients were able to indicate their personal needs. Important findings are the need for information and the need to be heard. Interestingly, hospitalization was mostly seen as an opportunity to achieve tranquillity. More lived experience expertise is needed to elucidate the needs of individuals in the early phase of a FEP to aid people who are recovering from their first psychosis in rebuilding their lives again.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".