Digital Interventions for the Rehabilitation of First-Episode Psychosis: An Integrated Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The integration of digital health technologies has transformed mental healthcare, particularly for young adults with First-Episode Psychosis (FEP). Digital interventions, such as telepsychiatry and mobile applications, address barriers like social stigma, restricted access to services, and the urgency of timely care. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and APA PsycINFO. Included studies focused on randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and open studies of digital interventions for FEP rehabilitation. Exclusion criteria included meta-analyses, reviews, and irrelevant studies. RESULTS: Smartphone applications like Horyzons-Canada facilitated peer support and symptom management, while tools such as My Journey 3 emphasized the need for better user engagement. Digital innovations, including Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) and telepsychiatry, demonstrated improvements in recovery and treatment adherence. DISCUSSION: Digital interventions significantly enhance the accessibility and quality of FEP care, supporting functional recovery and patient engagement. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies, user engagement strategies, and advanced analytics to develop personalized, scalable solutions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".