“I felt like that was a safe place to go”: a qualitative study of help-seeking experiences for early psychosis in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contacts with primary care for early psychosis are common, and there is a need for further insight into help-seeking patterns. AIMS: We sought to describe the help-seeking experiences in primary care for people with early psychosis and their caregivers. METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive approach, we recruited 22 clients with first-episode psychosis and 13 caregivers from seven specialized clinics to participate in a semi-structured interview. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Help-seeking experiences in primary care were varied. We identified themes describing client- and caregiver-level challenges and supports: impaired mental state, help-seeking decisions and support, and conflicting cultural beliefs and values (between clients and physicians). We also identified physician-level challenges and supports: physician knowledge (perceived as adequate or inadequate), follow-up (close or lack thereof), and supportive relationship with the client and/or caregiver. Finally, we identified health system-level themes: appointment availability and virtual care (described as insufficient). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to increase help-seeking for early psychosis more broadly may facilitate earlier primary care help-seeking. Primary care physician education, closer follow-up of young people with mental health issues, timely access, and in-person care could improve pathways to care in early psychosis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".