“I feel closer now”: experiences of relationships during and after a first episode of psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Social impairment has long been associated with psychosis, but recently a more nuanced understanding of how relationships are impacted by psychosis is emerging, taking into account both positive social changes (e.g. improved relationships, increased empathy for others) as well as challenges (e.g. stigma, shame).Methods Ten participants were recruited from two early intervention services to participate in semi-structured interviews pertaining to their lived experience of psychosis. Thematic analysis was conducted on data related to social experiences during and after psychosis.Results Participants reported a wide spectrum of experiences. Social withdrawal was common and sometimes enacted to protect oneself or others. Some participants reported feelings of confusion, shame, and guilt, resulting in internalized stigma and making it difficult to navigate relationships, especially after an experience of psychosis. Many participants reported positive social changes, including new, more meaningful, and closer relationships.Discussion Recovery and adaptation following psychosis is not a linear process, and signs of both distress and growth may occur in parallel. Likewise, social withdrawal and connection may take place simultaneously or successively. More attention should be paid in both research and practice to the myriad ways in which psychosis impacts relationships and how this matters to service users.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".