Race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status as predictors of outcome following family therapy in youth at clinical high risk for psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: There is limited research on the effects of sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors on treatment outcomes in youth at clinical high risk for psychosis (CHRp). This study examined sociodemographic factors that may affect functional outcomes within this population. Specifically, we investigated the influence of race/ethnicity (dichotomized as non-Hispanic whites [NHW] vs. people of colour [POC]), socioeconomic status (SES; operationalized as parental years of education), and their interaction on change in psychosocial functioning and symptoms over 6 months in a randomized trial of family-focused therapy. METHODS: CHRp youth (N = 128) participated in a randomized trial of family therapy (18 sessions of family therapy vs. 3 sessions of family psychoeducation). Sixty-four participants who self-identified as POC and 64 self-identified NHW participants completed baseline and 6-month follow-up measures of positive and negative symptoms and psychosocial (global, role, and social) functioning. Multiple regression models were conducted to test the main effect of race/ethnicity on changes in positive and negative symptoms and functioning, and whether this effect was moderated by parental education. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between race/ethnicity and parental education, such that higher parental education was associated with greater improvement in global functioning in NHW participants, but there was no relationship between parental education and global functioning in POC. Additionally, higher parental education was associated with a decrease in negative symptoms in NHW participants but not in POC. There were no significant effects of race/ethnicity or parental education on positive symptoms, nor on social or role functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians may consider tailoring psychosocial treatments according to the needs of diverse families who vary in sociodemographic factors such as educational attainment and race/ethnicity.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".