Determinants of mental health professionals’ attitudes towards recovery: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The attitudes of mental health professionals towards consumers' recovery are far more pessimistic than what is needed for the recovery-orientation to truly permeate systems of care. It has become pressing to depict determinants for these attitudes and how they evolve during professionalization. This, in the hopes to adjust not only medical education, but also ongoing training of professionals. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and PsycINFO databases was conducted, yielding a net 15 303 records. Twenty-two publications from specific educational journals and reference lists were added. Finally, thirty-four full texts were read, from which twenty-two articles were included. RESULTS: From the reviewed studies emerged five main determinants: profession, education, age, clinical experience, and nature of the contact with consumers. Traditional clinical placements during residency, negative experiences with acute patients, younger age and the professional attitudes of psychiatrists seem to all be determining factors for professionals' pessimistic attitudes towards recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This review found specific determinants for attitudes in recovery and four out of five can be acted upon. For a recovery-orientation to be implemented across our mental health system, we formulate recommendations within the Canadian context for revision of curriculum, recovery-specific training, and operationalisation through state/provincial technical assistance centers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 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 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".