A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effectiveness of a Modified Recovery Workbook Program: Preliminary Findings
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".