Narrative Matters: Mental health recovery – considerations when working with youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Youth mental health and well-being is of increasing concern to practitioners and policy-makers. Youth experiencing mental health problems face many barriers in accessing care and often have different needs to those of adults experiencing mental health problems. In order to adequately respond to the needs of young people aged 12-25, it is necessary to understand, from their perspective, their diverse needs and their different realities, using a global health approach and through participation in the development of mental health services and care. There are documented difficulties in implementing a recovery-oriented practice approach that have led to misapplications, misunderstandings and critiques. That said, there is little research or discussion on mental health recovery by and for young people and young adults. PURPOSE: To help child and adolescent mental health practitioners better assess the pertinence of the mental health recovery model in their practice, a focus on the emergence of the model can be helpful in order to adapt the current conceptions of mental health recovery for work with youth. CONCLUSION: Child and adolescent mental health professionals might want to consider the following three suggestions - consider developmental processes, focus on hope and create strong community ties.
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 | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".