Cross-cultural conceptualization and implementation of recovery in mental health: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to review the literature in terms of the conceptualization of the recovery concept among cultural and ethnic minorities drawing on the connectedness, hope and optimism about the future; Identity, meaning in life, empowerment (CHIME) framework; highlight the cultural adaptations of supported housing – a prominent recovery-oriented intervention, as it was implemented in a multicultural western country; and delineate the future implications for research, policy and practice in regard to mental health recovery interventions for cultural and ethnic minorities. Design/methodology/approach An online search was performed to identify recent empirical studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Findings Included studies confirmed what the authors of CHIME had initially reported: spirituality and support networks could act as enablers or inhibitors in the recovery process of mental health services users with diverse cultural backgrounds. The stigma surrounding mental illness is a key challenge that skews the recovery experience. Other cultural-specific factors include linguistic peculiarities of the maternal language and gender. The cultural adaptation of a recovery-oriented intervention was feasible and effective but also challenging. Originality/value By studying the cultural variations of mental health recovery, the intention is to inform mental health practitioners and other key stakeholders of the distinct cultural components that influence the recovery process, thereby promoting the development of culturally sensitive, accessible and effective recovery-oriented interventions. It is worth noting that providing culturally appropriate mental health services could be viewed as a human right issue for minority groups.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".