A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effectiveness of a Modified Recovery Workbook Program: Preliminary Findings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study examined the effectiveness of the Recovery Workbook as a group intervention for facilitating recovery of persons with serious mental illness. METHODS: The multicenter, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial included 33 persons who were receiving assertive community treatment services. For 12 weeks, a control group (N=17) received treatment as usual and an intervention group (N=16) received Recovery Workbook training in addition to usual treatment. At study entry and within three days of completion of the intervention, participants' perceived level of hope, empowerment, recovery, and quality of life were measured with the Herth Hope Index, the Empowerment Scale, the Recovery Assessment Scale, and the Quality of Life Index, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine between-group differences. RESULTS: Participation in the intervention group was associated with positive change in perceived level of hope, empowerment, and recovery but not in quality of life. The associations remained after analyses controlled for demographic variables. CONCLUSIONS: The study, which is one of the first randomized controlled trials of a recovery-based group intervention for persons with serious mental illness, showed that the Recovery Workbook group program was effective in increasing individuals' perceived sense of hope, empowerment, and recovery. In an era when recovery is the primary goal around which reformed mental health service delivery is organized, researchers should continue to study recovery-based interventions such as the Recovery Workbook to determine their potential as evidence-based treatment options.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it