Background: Recovery from mental illness and mental health problems is relatively well-researched among adults, but evidence that focuses on the recovery experiences of young people and what characterizes it is scarce. With this in mind, this article aims to map out the existing research in order to identify prevailing knowledge about the recovery of young people between the ages of 12 and 25. Method: Drawing on scoping review methodology, this article is based on an analysis of 33 articles conducted in the USA, Australia, and Europe. Results: Our findings reveal that young people express both similar and divergent lines of reasoning about recovery compared with adults. Our findings also indicate that young people often fluctuate in the way they view recovery, and that they thus tend to be ambivalent about what recovery means. Parents usually highlight the importance of professionals facilitating recovery, while care staff problematize the organizational frameworks available as aggravating circumstances for implementing personal recovery. Young people, parents, and care staff consistently describe recovery as a way to, despite lingering problems, enable a satisfying life. Conclusions: Through this review, we outline the need for a more distinct focus on agency and participation in young people's recovery processes, at the same time as family involvement needs to be further investigated and operationalized. Key Practitioner Message• Recovery theory is a prevalent model of mental health. Though recovery itself remains a core component in mental health literature, it is seldom found in child and adolescent psychiatry. • Agency and participation are suggested as important factors to attend to for practitioners working with young people's mental health. • The family's involvement in the recovery process seems to be unclear, meaning that more attention is needed as to how families become significant and what is considered to contribute to recovery within the immediate network. • To make the recovery process more concrete, further research on young people's recovery is needed and especially their subjective experiences of it.

This article aims to shed light on cognitive disabilities after electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) from an expert-by-experience perspective. It illuminates the living conditions that may follow, with a particular focus on epistemic injustice, societal attitudes, narration and recovery. Since personal narratives about ECT are scant, an autoethnographic method was used through which I weave together my own experiences of ECT and the need for support from, for example, social services, with research in various nearby areas. These experiences were then placed in a wider psycho-social context. Three themes emerged when analysing own experiences of ECT, revealing both risks and important aspects of managing side effects such as cognitive disabilities: (i) At the social services office; (ii) Alienation in society; and (iii) Excerpt from a friendly conversation. Subjective experiences may broaden the understanding of a certain phenomenon which calls for greater (societal) knowledge regarding cognitive disabilities after ECT. It also emphasises the importance of different professionals, including social workers and psychiatric staff, working to promote recovery, legitimise users’ narratives and not seeing disabilities as given obstacles in everyday life.

BackgroundThe implementation of Patient-Initiated Brief Admission (PIBA) in child and adolescent psychiatry (CAP) in Sweden is ongoing. This intervention enables adolescents between the ages of 13–17 and with complex mental health problems to initiate a short care period for relief and support rather than the care apparatus being controlling in this process. Offering it is likely to promote epistemic agency, an exchange of knowledge and recovery from mental health problems.AimThe aim of this study was to explore staff’s perspectives of PIBA for adolescents with complex mental health problems, and what facilitates or hinders its implementation.MethodsTwenty seven employees, 21 women and six men, with various professions in CAP were interviewed and the material was analyzed thematically.ResultsTwo overall themes emerged: “Staff’s Experiences of PIBA” and “Managing Clinical PIBA Work.” The results were discussed in relation to the theoretical frameworks of epistemic injustice and Normalization Process Theory (NPT). The main findings indicate that PIBA was generally viewed in a positive way, but that obstacles arose when it was actually put into practice. Findings also point at an overall lack of agency among staff when implementing this new way of working, at the same time as the need to adapt PIBA from an adult psychiatric intervention to one for adolescents in CAP is addressed.ConclusionThis article offers insights into the views of psychiatric staff regarding the implementation of PIBA. If staff wish to support epistemic agency and recovery among adolescents, their agency may be an important aspect in the continued implementation. Furthermore, in order for PIBA to become normalized in a sustainable way, we suggest that the continued implementation should be characterized by a youth-friendly framework.