Effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention for persons with early psychosis: A multi-site randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Mindfulness Ambassador Program (MAP) is a group-based, facilitated mindfulness-based intervention (MBI). We sought to determine the effectiveness of MAP on reducing negative psychotic symptoms and enhancing mindfulness skills among persons experiencing early psychosis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) at three early psychosis intervention (EPI) programs in Ontario, Canada. Participants (N = 59) were randomly assigned to receive MAP (n = 29) for 1-hour weekly sessions over 3 months, or to treatment as usual (TAU, n = 30). Assessments were conducted at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months using the Self-Evaluation of Negative Symptoms (SNS) and Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS). Linear mixed methods were used to assess the joint effects of group and time. RESULTS: At 3 months, participants who received MAP (n = 17) demonstrated greater reductions on the SNS relative to TAU (n = 15), which were clinically and statistically significant (-4.1; 95%CI -7.5, -0.7; p = 0.019). At 6 months, the difference between MAP (n = 10) and TAU (n = 13) was no longer statistically significant (-1.2; 95%CI -5.2,2.7; p = 0.54). On the KIMS, no significant effects were found at 3 months (+0.3; 95%CI -2.0,2.5; p = 0.82) or 6 months (+0.4; 95%CI -2.2,2.9; p = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: We conducted one of the first multi-site RCTs of a MBI for early psychosis. Our findings indicated that MAP was more effective in reducing negative symptoms compared to TAU in the short term. Earlier reductions in negative psychotic symptoms may help facilitate recovery in the long term.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".