28-country global study on associations between cultural characteristics and Recovery College fidelity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recovery Colleges (RCs) are learning-based mental health recovery communities, located globally. However, evidence on RC effectiveness outside Western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) countries is limited. This study aimed to evaluate associations between cultural characteristics and RC fidelity, to understand how culture impacts RC operation. Service managers from 169 RCs spanning 28 WEIRD and non-WEIRD countries assessed the fidelity using the RECOLLECT Fidelity Measure, developed based upon key RC operation components. Hofstede's cultural dimension scores were entered as predictors in linear mixed-effects regression models, controlling for GDP spent on healthcare and Gini coefficient. Higher Individualism and Indulgence, and lower Uncertainty Avoidance were associated with higher fidelity, while Long-Term Orientation was a borderline negative predictor. RC operations were predominantly aligned with WEIRD cultures, highlighting the need to incorporate non-WEIRD cultural perspectives to enhance RCs' global impact. Findings can inform the refinement and evaluation of mental health recovery interventions worldwide.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".