Role of psychological factors in studying recovery from a transactional stress‐coping approach: Implications for mental health nursing practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last decade, the experience of recovering from psychiatric disabilities has received increased attention in mental health nursing. Recovery is a complex experience that can be understood in terms of construct, process, and outcomes. New theoretical frameworks are needed to better understand antecedents, process variables, and outcomes related to recovery. Considering that recovery is a stressful and challenging experience, the transactional stress-coping theory appears relevant to explore the appraisal and coping processes involved in recovery. Based on this theory, a new framework has been built to better understand the phenomenon of stress in recovery. More specifically, a review of the recovery literature had led to the identification of several key recovery concepts, which were then linked to major stress-coping concepts, namely contextual factors, potential stressors, primary and secondary appraisals, coping strategies, and short-term and long-term outcomes. This paper focuses on specific types of personal characteristics that are included in the broad category of contextual factors, namely psychological factors. These factors may act as coping resources, helping people to deal successfully with events interfering with the achievement of recovery goals. The main purpose of this paper is to offer a detailed discussion about how mental health nursing practices may promote the role of psychological factors within the stress-coping process. Three categories of psychological factors are discussed: views about oneself, psychological empowerment, and personal/philosophical orientations in life. A brief summary of the new framework is first offered to introduce its major concepts and basic mechanisms.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".