The clinical and psychosocial journey of young people engaging with early intervention psychosis services: qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early Intervention Psychosis Services (EIPS) provide multimodal interventions for young people who are at risk of, or have experienced, a first episode of psychosis. Although recent studies have begun to examine this critical period in a young person's personal recovery in more depth, little is known about how young people experience EIPS in general, and its influences on their clinical and psychosocial recovery in particular. AIMS: This study aimed to explore young people's experience of EIPS, specifically the factors that have affected their (a) clinical and (b) psychosocial recovery. METHOD: This study purposively sampled 27 young people from a range of backgrounds at 6 community-based EIPS in Australia. Audio-recorded, semi-structured interviews were conducted and reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse this data-set. RESULTS: Four themes of how EIPS enabled recovery were identified. The first three - a safe space, unconditional support and active involvement - were foundational to a fourth theme of gradual self-management. In earlier-stage self-management, participants relied on practical supports to make connections and find education and employment opportunities. By later-stage self-management, they had developed the tools to do these things for themselves. Participants' movement between earlier- and later-stage self-management was connected to their overall EIPS engagement and, for some, to their engagement with peer support. CONCLUSIONS: Providing a safe space, unconditional support and active involvement for clients and their families created the foundational conditions for improved clinical and psychosocial recovery. Peer support programmes, increasing engagement when situational changes such as employment occur and the provision of culturally sensitive care appeared valuable to this process.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".