Perceived social support in parents with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and their co-parents: The Danish high risk and resilience study VIA 7
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lack of social support is a risk factor for symptom recurrence and poor prognosis for individuals with severe mental disorders. Compared to healthy populations, individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are more likely to perceive lower levels of social support. Evidence is needed on perceived social support in parents with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and their co-parents. METHODS: Based on data from a population-based cohort study, The Danish High Risk and Resilience Study - VIA 7, we compared perceived social support measured with The Social Provisions Scale (SPS) in parents with schizophrenia (n = 148), their co-parents (n = 157), parents with bipolar disorder (n = 98), their co-parents (n = 89), and control parents (n = 359). RESULTS: We found lower levels of perceived social support in parents with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder compared with controls. Schizophrenia co-parents had lower levels of perceived social support compared to controls, but no difference was found between bipolar disorder co-parents and controls. CONCLUSIONS: Low levels of perceived social support for these parents may pose an additional risk factor for their offspring in addition to the effects of genetic risk. Our results may inform future intervention studies and highlight the need for support for families with parental schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, 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".