ArticlePloS one2025
Reviewing the evidence base for social recovery in mental health service provision: A protocol for a scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe concept of recovery within mental health service delivery is no longer a new concept across the westernised world. However, its development in terms of implementation policy and practice has remained challenging for all stakeholders. This has focused on personal recovery being unattainable for many individuals due to neoliberalism and individualism. Consequently, one argument which is beginning to build is the need to focus on the idea of social recovery, a relatively new concept. However, no synthesis of social recovery's evidence base in relation to mental health service provision has taken place. This protocol provides a detailed plan of how a scoping review would be undertaken and completed to examine this evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adopting Arksey and O'Malley's framework, A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis compliant scoping review has been chosen. This includes a five-stage approach to completing scoping reviews. This includes the search terms that will be used. It also details the variety of databases (CINAHL, EBSCO, Jstor, OVID SP, PsychINFO, PubMed, RCNi, Science Direct, Web of Science and Scopus) and other sources including repositories (Cochrane Online Library, ETHos, nz.research.org.nz, ProQuest, National ETD Portal, Google, Google Scholar and ResearchGate). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are illustrated in this protocol. Given that the concept of social recovery is relatively new, no search range was chosen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.