Mediating Effect of Hope on the Relationship Between Depression and Recovery in Persons With Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Depression and hope are considered pivotal variables in the recovery process of people with schizophrenia. Aim: This study examined the moderating effect of depression on the relationship between hope and recovery, and the mediating effect of hope on the relationship between depression and recovery in persons with schizophrenia. Methods: The model was tested empirically using the data of 115 persons with schizophrenia from Central Java Province, Indonesia. The Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, Schizophrenia Hope Scale-9, and Recovery Assessment Scale were used to measure participants' depression, hope, and recovery, respectively. Results: The findings supported the hypothesis that depression moderates the relationship between hope and recovery, and hope mediates the relationship between depression and recovery. Conclusions: The findings suggest that mental health professionals need to focus on instilling hope and reducing depression to help improve the recovery of persons with schizophrenia. Furthermore, mental health professionals should actively develop and implement programs to instill hope and continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions, particularly in community-based and in-patient mental health settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".