MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322757636 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0276802

The principles of recovery-oriented mental health services: A review of the guidelines from five different countries for developing a protocol to be implemented in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

2023· review· en· W4322757636 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. A. Subandi, Maryama Nihayah, Carla Raymondalexas Marchira, Trihayuning Tyas, Ariana Marastuti, Ratri Pratiwi, Fiddina Mediola, Yohanes Kartika Herdiyanto, Osi Kusuma Sari, Mary‐Jo DelVecchio Good, Byron J. Good

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan
KeywordsMental healthEmpowermentThematic analysisDeveloping countryContext (archaeology)Protocol (science)Public relationsFocus groupPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyQualitative researchEconomic growthBusinessMarketingPsychiatrySocial scienceAlternative medicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recovery-oriented mental health service has become the focus of global change in mental health services. Most of North industrialized countries have adopted and implemented this paradigm in the last two decades. Only recently that some developing countries are trying to follow this step. In Indonesia's case, there has been little attention to developing a recovery orientation by mental health authorities. The aim of this article is to synthesize and analyze the recovery-oriented guidelines from five industrialized countries that we can use as a primary model for developing a protocol to be implemented in community health centre in Kulonprogo District, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. METHOD: We used a narrative literature review by searching for guidelines from many different sources. We found 57 guidelines, but only 13 from five countries met the criteria, including five guidelines from Australia, one from Ireland, three from Canada, two from the UK, and two from the US. To analyze the data, we used an inductive thematic analysis to explore the themes of each principle as described by the guideline. RESULT: The results of the thematic analysis revealed seven recovery principles, including (1) cultivating positive hope, (2) establishing partnerships and collaboration, (3) ensuring organizational commitment and evaluation, (4) recognizing the consumer's rights, (5) focusing on person-centeredness and empowerment, (6) recognizing an individual's uniqueness and social context, and (7) facilitating social support,. These seven principles are not independent, rather they are interrelated and overlap each other. CONCLUSION: The principle of person-centeredness and empowerment is central to the recovery-oriented mental health system, while the principle of hope is also essential to embracing all the other principles. We will adjust and implement the result of the review in our project focusing on developing recovery-oriented mental health service in the community health center in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. We hope that this framework will be adopted by the central government in Indonesia and other developing countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.571
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.048 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207