MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410093583 · doi:10.1037/prj0000647

Exploring the relationship between meaning in life and recovery in people with serious mental illness (SMI): A latent profile analysis.

2025· article· en· W4410093583 on OpenAlexaff
Jin-Hee Yu, Yein Kim, Eunjeong Ko, Sungman Shin, Yongsu Song

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Rehabilitation Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsGreo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Mental illnessPsychologyPsychotherapistPsychiatryMental healthClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Meaning in life is crucial for the recovery of individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). The aim of the present study was to identify profiles of meaning in life among individuals with SMI based on the presence of meaning and search for meaning and to examine their associations with recovery. METHODS: Latent profile analysis for a sample of 207 individuals with SMI in South Korea was employed to identify the latent profile of meaning in life using the presence of meaning and searching for meaning as an indicator. Next, multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between demographic variables and latent profiles. Last, categorical regression was applied to explore the association of latent profiles with recovery. RESULTS: Latent profile analysis revealed three distinctive profiles: meaning diffusion (10.1%), meaning moratorium (27.5%), and meaning achievement (62.3%). Among demographic variables, only age had a negative effect. Compared with meaning moratorium (reference group), meaning achievement positively predicted recovery, whereas meaning diffusion negatively predicted recovery. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The finding could help psychiatric rehabilitation practitioners focus on helping individuals with SMI in promoting meaning in life for their recovery journey. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric Rehabilitation JournalSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207