Adaptation of a Psychosocial Intervention for Canadian Youth at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: Adaptation d'une intervention psychosociale pour les jeunes à haut risque clinique de psychose au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This paper provides a detailed account of the process and outcomes involved in adapting a psychosocial intervention – the Optimal Health Program (OHP) – for young individuals who are at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis. This adaptation process included the active participation of youth with lived experience of psychosis spectrum disorder (CHR and first episode psychosis). Methods: A six-member advisory group consisting of youth with lived experience was established. The group convened weekly to review the OHP workbook in detail. This initiative was supported by a dedicated research assistant. Adherence to established guidelines for engaging with youth was maintained throughout. Following the completion of the adaptation, a review session was conducted to gather feedback. Results: The primary adaptations made to the intervention can be categorized as follows: 1) modification of language; 2) tailoring to the CHR population; 3) incorporation of personal stories; 4) emphasis on personalized recovery; 5) inclusion of ‘guiding and supportive activities’; 6) enhancement of graphic design. Suggestions for a digital application were not integrated due to their scope extending beyond the aims of the current project. An assessment of the engagement process revealed that the involvement of youth was meaningful and impactful. Conclusions: Through sustained and meaningful engagement with youth with lived experience, the present project adapted OHP for CHR individuals. The resulting intervention materials are anticipated to be closely aligned with the distinct needs and priorities of young CHR individuals. Subsequent endeavours in developing appropriate interventions that aim to improve outcomes for this population should involve engaging and collaborating with individuals with lived experience. We are currently in the process of evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of delivering OHP to individuals with CHR in a clinical trial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".