Recovery-oriented service provision and clinical outcomes in assertive community treatment.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While the term "recovery" is routinely referenced in clinical services and health policy, few studies have examined the relationship between recovery-oriented service provision and client outcomes. The present study was designed to examine the relationship between recovery-orientation of service provision for persons with severe mental illnesses and outcomes in Assertive Community Treatment (ACT). METHODS: Client, family, staff, and manager ratings of service recovery-orientation and outcomes across a range of service utilization and community functioning indicators were examined among 67 ACT teams in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Significant associations were found between ratings of recovery-oriented service provision and better outcomes in the domains of legal involvement, hospitalization days, education involvement, and employment. Results were not uniformly positive or consistent, however, across stakeholder Recovery Self-Assessment (RSA) ratings or outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These findings provide some preliminary support for an association between recovery-oriented service delivery for persons with severe mental illnesses and better outcomes. In line with the current practice commentary, this association would suggest the importance of evaluating and cultivating recovery-oriented values and practices in ACT contexts. This is a particularly salient point given that ACT standards minimally address key domains of recovery-oriented service provision. Further study is required, however, to determine if these findings apply to the implementation of ACT in other jurisdictions or generalize to other community support programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".