The exploration of occupational therapy early intervention to target greater social inclusion for individuals with psychosis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychosis is a disabling condition and can have devastating consequences for individuals particularly socially. It can leave individuals with deteriorated social functioning which often leads to social isolation. Early intervention within psychosis allows maximum chances of engagement and recovery. There has been extensive research into early intervention in psychosis and it has led to major investment within England to create fifty new specialist early psychosis services. The occupational therapist is a key member within these teams to help recover ordinary lives. This paper seeks to review the current literature surrounding the role of the occupational therapist to target greater social inclusion working within specialised early intervention services for psychosis. The issues individuals with psychosis face suggest an increased need for occupational therapists to work within this area however there is limited research within this field and the small number of studies that have been conducted were mostly Australian or Canadian with only one British study which is eleven years old. The role of the occupational therapist and interventions are poorly defined within the area of early intervention in psychosis. Therefore, the subsequent research proposal aims to explore occupational therapists perspectives working within a specialised early intervention service for psychosis to identify specific, effective rehabilitation interventions to target greater social inclusion: in order to uncover if interventions are being designed with the particular needs of these clients in mind and to investigate if there are any barriers within services in relation to the implementation of policy. This phenomenological study aims to interview eight occupational therapists as they are the providers/ key stake holders and as such are responsible for the development and implementation of programmes.\nThe interviews will be audio taped, lasting approximately 60 minutes in the participants‟ place of work. The findings will be analysed using thematic analysis to establish common themes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".