Translating mental health recovery guidelines into recovery-oriented innovations: A strategy combining implementation teams and a facilitated planning process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recovery is the focus of mental health strategies internationally. However, little translation of recovery knowledge has occurred in mental health services. The purpose of this research is to bridge the gap between recovery guidelines and practice by developing a new implementation strategy involving the formation of implementation teams made up of different stakeholders (service users, service providers, managers, knowledge users) and facilitating a 12-meeting implementation planning process. Sevenmental health organizations across Canada successfully completed the process of translating the guidelines into a recovery-oriented innovation that was implemented. Fifty-five implementation team members were interviewed upon completion of the 12-meeting process. Findings indicate that implementation team members perceived the structured planning process as positive. Nevertheless, the language of implementation science remains difficult to understand for a non-academic audience. Key elements of the 12-meeting process included the value of consensus building among implementation team members and the subsequent shifting power relationships. While working with diverse stakeholders came with certain challenges, the process in itself was a form of system transformation. This type of engaged planning process was a significant departure from the more top-down approaches to organizational change that staff were used to.
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 | 0.190 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".