Development of a recovery education program for inpatient mental health providers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Mental health system transformation toward a recovery-orientation has created a demand for education to equip providers with recovery competencies. This report describes the development of a recovery education program designed specifically for inpatient providers. METHOD: Part 1 of the education is a self-learning program introducing recovery concepts and a recovery competency framework; Part 2 is a group-learning program focusing on real-life dilemmas and applying the Appreciative Inquiry approach to address these clinical dilemmas. A pilot study with a pretest/posttest design was used to evaluate the program. Participants included 26 inpatient multidisciplinary providers from 3 hospitals. RESULTS: The results showed participants' improvement on recovery knowledge (z = -2.55, p = .011) after the self-learning program. Evaluations of the group-learning program were high (4.21 out of 5). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These results support continued efforts to refine the program. Inpatient providers could use this program to lead interprofessional practice in promoting recovery.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".