Integrating psychiatric rehabilitation into inpatient psychiatric hospitalization to advance personal recovery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric rehabilitation services (PRS) were developed to facilitate recovery and community integration by addressing psychosocial needs such as housing, employment, illness management, and social inclusion for individuals with serious mental illness. However, PRS are primarily designed for and available in community settings. The objective of this conceptual article is to explore the potential role of PRS during inpatient psychiatric hospitalization and offer a forward-looking vision, identifying trends to guide future efforts. METHOD: This article presents a conceptual analysis of the potential benefits and impacts of PRS on the recovery process of individuals with serious mental illness if these services were also provided during hospitalization. This critical analysis was coauthored by various stakeholders, including individuals with lived experience, psychiatric, and other mental health providers, and psychiatric rehabilitation researchers. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Integrating PRS into routine care during psychiatric hospitalization supports recovery and facilitates postdischarge community connections and outcomes. While PRS were originally conceptualized and designed for community settings, efforts should be made to tailor and adapt them for use in inpatient settings. Shifting staff attitudes toward inpatient recovery-oriented care, developing interventions and training for PRS integration, and securing leadership and institutional buy-in are the next practical steps to make this vision a reality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".