English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Some recovery homes have facilitating relationships and organizational characteristics, and there are also social capital differences among residents of these recovery homes. It is important to better understand the impact of protective and risk individual and house factors on recovery issues among residents of these community-based settings. Individuals from 42 recovery homes were followed for up to six data collection periods over two years. House level latent class analyses tapped relationship and organizational domains and individual level latent class analyses were from derived from elements of recovery capital. Houses that manifested protective factors provided most residents positive outcomes, except those with elevated self-esteem. Houses that were less facilitating had more negative exits, except for those residents who were the highest functioning. Both individual and house characteristics are of importance in helping to understand risk factors associated with eviction outcomes for residents in recovery homes.

Individual and Contextual Protective and Risk Characteristics for Residents of Recovery Homes