MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412711574 · doi:10.3390/ijerph22081173

Differences in Personal Recovery Among Individuals with Severe Mental Disorders in Private and Supported Accommodations: An Exploratory Study

2025· article· en· W4412711574 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandra Martinelli, Tecla Pozzan, Doriana Cristofalo, Chiara Bonetto, Camilla D’Astore, Elena Procura, Corrado Barbui, Mirella Ruggeri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity Hospital Foundation
FundersMinistero della Salute
KeywordsPsychologyExploratory researchClinical psychologyMental healthPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with severe mental disorders (SMD) face long-term functional impairments requiring integrated, community-based, recovery-oriented care. Italy provides two main housing models for people with SMD: private accommodation (PA) and supported accommodation (SA). This exploratory study investigated differences in recovery outcomes across these settings using the Mental Health Recovery Star (MHRS). A six-month longitudinal study was conducted within the South Verona Community Mental Health Service. Nineteen trained mental health professionals assessed 25 people with SMD (14 in PA, 11 in SA) at baseline (BL) and follow-up (FU) using standardized tools for recovery (MHRS), functioning, psychopathology, functional autonomy, and needs. Group comparisons and within-group changes were analyzed using paired and independent t-tests. At BL, people with SMD in PA showed better functioning (p = 0.040) and fewer needs than those in SA (p = 0.008). Recovery goals differed, with people with SMD in PA focusing on health and networks, while people with SMD in SA emphasized functioning. At FU, people with SMD in PA improved across all MHRS domains (p < 0.001), with significant reductions in symptom severity and unmet needs. People with SMD in SA showed targeted improvements in functioning, autonomy, and MHRS social networks (p < 0.001), with increases in met needs but non-significant changes in unmet needs. When comparing PA and SA at FU, the differences were relatively modest. Recovery is achievable in both housing settings, although outcomes differ. People with SMD in PA experienced broader improvements, while people with SMD in SA progressed in their prioritized areas, likely reflecting more complex initial needs. These findings underscore the value of aligning recovery-oriented care with the specific needs and contexts of different residential settings. Further research is needed to confirm and expand these results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health→Same topicMental Health and Patient Involvement→French-language works237,207→