Recovery from serious mental illness has historically not been considered a likely or even possible outcome. However, a range of evidence suggests the courses of SMI are heterogeneous with recovery being the most likely outcome. One barrier to studying recovery in SMI is that recovery has been operationalized in divergent and seemingly incompatible ways: as an objective outcome versus a subjective process. Areas covered: This paper offers a review of recovery as a subjective process and recovery as an objective outcome; contrasts methodologies utilized by each approach to assess recovery; reports rates and correlates of recovery; and explores the relationship between objective and subjective forms of recovery. Expert commentary: There are two commonalities of approaching recovery as a subjective process and an objective outcome: (i) the need to make meaning out of one's experiences to engage in either type of recovery and (ii) there exist many threats to engaging in meaning making that may impact the likelihood of moving toward recovery. We offer four clinical implications that stem from these two commonalities within a divided approach to the concept of recovery from SMI.

Sri Lankan doctors and undergraduates endorse stigmatizing attitudes towards mental illnesses and are especially prone to see patients as blameworthy. As such attitudes are likely to affect the engagement of patients in treatment and specific interventions that modify negative attitudes towards people with mental illnesses are needed. Ensuring that medical students have contact with recovered patients in community psychiatry settings may be one way of decreasing stigmatizing attitudes.

SummaryBackgroundAlthough clozapine is the treatment of choice for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, 30–40% of patients have an insufficient response, and others are unable to tolerate it. Evidence for any augmentation strategies is scarce. We aimed to determine whether cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in community-based and inpatient mental health services in five sites in the UK. Patients with schizophrenia who were unable to tolerate clozapine, or whose symptoms did not respond to the drug, were randomly assigned 1:1 by use of randomised-permuted blocks of size four or six, stratified by centre, to either CBT plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Research assistants were masked to allocation to protect against rater bias and allegiance bias. The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months, which provides a continuous measure of symptoms of schizophrenia; PANSS total was also assessed at the end of treatment (9 months). The primary analysis was by randomised treatment based on intention to treat, for all patients for whom data were available. This study was prospectively registered, number ISRCTN99672552. The trial is closed to accrual.FindingsFrom Jan 1, 2013, to May 31, 2015, we randomly assigned 487 participants to either CBT and treatment as usual (n=242) or treatment as usual alone (n=245). Analysis included 209 in the CBT group and 216 in the treatment as usual group. No difference occurred in the primary outcome (PANSS total at 21 months, mean difference −0·89, 95% CI −3·32 to 1·55; p=0·48), although the CBT group improved at the end of treatment (PANSS total at 9 months, mean difference −2·40, −4·79 to −0·02; p=0·049). During the trial, 107 (44%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and 104 (42%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had at least one adverse event (odds ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·81 to 1·46; p=0·58). Only two (1%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and one (<1%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had a trial-related serious adverse event.InterpretationAt 21-month follow-up, CBT did not have a lasting effect on total symptoms of schizophrenia compared with treatment as usual; however, CBT produced statistically, though not clinically, significant improvements on total symptoms by the end of treatment. There was no indication that the addition of CBT to treatment as usual caused adverse effects. The results of this trial do not support a recommendation to routinely offer CBT to all people who meet criteria for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia; however, a pragmatic individual trial might be indicated for some.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment programme.