The conceptual framework is a theoretically defensible and robust synthesis of people's experiences of recovery in mental illness. This provides an empirical basis for future recovery-oriented research and practice.

No abstract

A key challenge for mental health services is the lack of clarity about what constitutes recovery-oriented practice. The conceptual framework contributes to this knowledge gap and provides a synthesis of recovery-oriented practice guidance.

Aims. Mental health policy internationally varies in its support for recovery. The aims of this study were to validate an existing conceptual framework and then characterise by country the distribution, scientific foundations and emphasis in published recovery conceptualisations.Methods. Update and modification of a previously published systematic review and narrative synthesis of recovery conceptualisations published in English.Results. A total of 7431 studies were identified and 429 full papers reviewed, from which 105 conceptualisations in 115 papers were included and quality assessed using established rating scales. Recovery conceptualisations were identified from 11 individual countries, with 95 (91%) published in English-speaking countries, primarily the USA (47%) and the UK (25%). The scientific foundation was primarily qualitative research (53%), non-systematic literature reviews (24%) and position papers (12%). The conceptual framework was validated with the 18 new papers. Across the different countries, there was a relatively similar distribution of codings for each of five key recovery processes.Conclusions. Recovery as currently conceptualised in English-language publications is primarily based on qualitative studies and position papers from English-speaking countries. The conceptual framework was valid, but the development of recovery conceptualisations using a broader range of research designs within other cultures and non-majority populations is a research priority.

OBJECTIVE Mental health systems internationally have adopted a goal of supporting recovery. Measurement of the experience of recovery is, therefore, a priority. The aim of this review was to identify and analyze recovery measures in relation to their fit with recovery and their psychometric adequacy. METHODS A systematic search of six data sources for articles, Web-based material, and conference presentations related to measurement of recovery was conducted by using a defined search strategy. Results were filtered by title and by abstract (by two raters in the case of abstracts), and the remaining papers were reviewed to identify any suitable measures of recovery. Measures were then evaluated for their fit with the recovery processes identified in the CHIME framework (connectedness, hope, identity, meaning, and empowerment) and for demonstration of nine predefined psychometric properties. RESULTS Thirteen measures of personal recovery were identified from 336 abstracts and 35 articles. The Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) was published most, and the Questionnaire About the Process of Recovery (QPR) was the only measure to have all items map to the CHIME framework. No measure demonstrated all nine psychometric properties. The Stages of Recovery Instrument demonstrated the most psychometric properties (N=6), followed by the Maryland Assessment of Recovery (N=5), and the QPR and the RAS (N=4). Criterion validity, responsiveness, and feasibility were particularly underinvestigated properties. CONCLUSIONS No recovery measure can currently be unequivocally recommended, although the QPR most closely maps to the CHIME framework of recovery and the RAS is most widely published.