Collaborative recovery model: From mental health recovery to wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All rights reserved. Traditional mental health care emphasises living with fewer symptoms; mental health recovery may be seen as living well with illness and wellbeing as simply living well. Within this spectrum of aims, this chapter describes the evolution of the Collaborative Recovery Model (CRM) from its origins around the year 1998 until now. The CRM is a conceptual model and training/coaching resource designed to support (a) mental health service provision to become more recovery-oriented and (b) mental health organisational development consistent with mental health recovery values. Th rough training and coaching, the CRM assists mental health staff and consumers to emphasise hope for recovery, personal meaning and growth in the lives of both people living with mental illness and the staff of the services. Evaluation of this program has been supported by National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council funding. To maximise quality distribution and sustainability, Neami National, a nongovernmental mental organisation in Australia, was granted a ten-year exclusive license to use the IP from the CRM suite of programs in order to provide training services to other agencies in Australia. Since the license was granted, Neami National has provided training to over 700 practitioners in Australia, on top of the previous 2000 practitioners trained by the University of Wollongong in Australia, China and Canada. CRM involves two guiding principles and four components. The first guiding principle, 'recovery as an individual process', is underpinned by a model of psychological recovery. In the following chapter psychological recovery is described and contextualised in relation to established theories of wellbeing. The overall CRM is then described, with reference to both the staff training/coaching version referred to as "Coach" and the assisted peer support version referred to as "Flourish". The chapter concludes with reflections upon the challenges of implementation and organisational change within mental health services.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".