Editorial: Mental health recovery: engaging and empowering people living with mental illness and their families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
shaped the landscape of global mental health, advocating for a shift toward recoveryoriented approaches in both practices and policies, as exemplified by the World Health Organization (WHO)'s endorsement in many of its official publications [6].The collections in this Research Topic reflect the evolving understanding of mental health recovery in the very recent years. They demonstrate how people with lived experience of mental illness can engage in meaningful living through self-reflection, peer connection, institutional innovation, and attitudinal change. Although these studies vary in research focus and methodological design, they all underscore the notion that recovery is a relational and participatory process enacted not only within the individuals but also through their multifaceted interactions with peers, professionals, and the broader communities.Zhu & Lyu (2024) present a collaborative autoethnography reflecting one author's lived experience of recovery from depression and its intersectionality with broader social contexts. Drawing from anti-stigma perspectives, the paper provides an in-depth account of how individuals make sense of their mental distress and reclaim their Two studies in this research topic focus on peer support, a growing area of interest in mental health recovery [7]. Fan, Liu & Li (2024) describe how peer interactions within a psychiatric day-care center in China foster a sense of meaning and community, despite a lack of a formal structure. In contrast, Lequin et al. (2023) examine the integration of trained Peer Mental Health Practitioners (PMHPs) at a hospital unit caring for patients with psychiatric disorders. Their qualitative study demonstrates that structured peer support benefits not only patients but also clinical teams and the institution. However, the authors also note that clearly defined roles and professional boundaries are crucial for the sustainable integration of PMHPs.Health professionals play a pivotal role in mental health service delivery and recovery processes. Their attitudes significantly influence service users' self-perception and therapeutic engagement. Evidence suggests that healthcare providers' attitudes toward mental illness are no more positive than those of the general public [8,9]. Cho & Kim (2024) attempted to address this gap by designing an empathy-enhancing program for nursing students, using patient narratives. Their quasi-experimental study shows promising effects of having service users as educators and agents of change through sharing their lived experience narratives with future care providers.Despite the valuable insights from these studies on engaging and empowering individuals with lived experience, a notable omission remains: the role of families. This omission may also reflect a broader gap in recovery research and practices literature [10]. Families often serve as primary caregivers and integral members of interpersonal networks, particularly in non-Western or low-resource settings [11]. Engaging families is essential to supporting the individual's recovery and sustaining their own well-being [12]. Future research should prioritize family integration and explore strategies to empower families as collaborative partners in recovery.In summary, the collections in this Research Topic reaffirm that recovery is neither exclusively a clinical process nor simply an intrapersonal one. Rather, it is relational, context-sensitive, and socially embedded. Meaningful engagement must extend beyond individualistic therapeutic encounters to encompass the broader domains of social relationships, institutional practices, and public narratives. Recovery takes place when people with mental illness become active participants in mental health practices and policies. To enable such recovery, mental health systems must foster recovery-oriented environments both within care settings and across broader society that value inclusion, shared decision-making, the lived experiences of individuals and families, and collective transformation [13,14].
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.013 |
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".