Qualitative research aims to address questions concerned with developing an understanding of the meaning and experience dimensions of humans' lives and social worlds. Central to good qualitative research is whether the research participants' subjective meanings, actions and social contexts, as understood by them, are illuminated. This paper aims to provide beginning researchers, and those unfamiliar with qualitative research, with an orientation to the principles that inform the evaluation of the design, conduct, findings and interpretation of qualitative research. It orients the reader to two philosophical perspectives, the interpretive and critical research paradigms, which underpin both the qualitative research methodologies most often used in mental health research, and how qualitative research is evaluated. Criteria for evaluating quality are interconnected with standards for ethics in qualitative research. They include principles for good practice in the conduct of qualitative research, and for trustworthiness in the interpretation of qualitative data. The paper reviews these criteria, and discusses how they may be used to evaluate qualitative research presented in research reports. These principles also offer some guidance about the conduct of sound qualitative research for the beginner qualitative researcher.

No abstract

Peer support is based on the belief that people who have faced, endured, and overcome adversity can offer useful support, encouragement, hope, and perhaps mentorship to others facing similar situations. While this belief is well accepted for many conditions, such as addiction, trauma, or cancer, stigma and stereotypes about mental illness have impeded attempts on the part of people in recovery to offer such supports within the mental health system. Beginning in the early 1990s with programs that deployed people with mental illness to provide conventional services such as case management, opportunities for the provision and receipt of peer support within the mental health system have proliferated rapidly across the country as part of the emerging recovery movement. This article defines peer support as a form of mental health care and reviews data from 4 randomized controlled trials, which demonstrated few differences between the outcomes of conventional care when provided by peers versus non-peers. We then consider what, if any, unique contributions can be made by virtue of a person's history of serious mental illness and recovery and review beginning efforts to identify and evaluate these potential valued-added components of care. We conclude by suggesting that peer support is still early in its development as a form of mental health service provision and encourage further exploration and evaluation of this promising, if yet unproven, practice.

Background: There is an increasing global commitment to recovery as the expectation for people with mental illness. There remains, however, little consensus on what recovery means in relation to mental illness. Aims: To contribute to current efforts to tease apart the various aspects of recovery appearing in the psychiatric literature by describing two conceptualizations of recovery from and recovery in mental illness. Method: Review of empirical literature on recovery and use of the term in clinical and rehabilitative practice. Results: Two potentially complementary meanings of recovery were identified. The first meaning of recovery from mental illness derives from over 30 years of longitudinal clinical research, which has shown that improvement is just as common, if not more so, than progressive deterioration. The second meaning of recovery in derives from the Mental Health Consumer/Survivor Movement, and refers instead to a person's rights to self-determination and inclusion in community life despite continuing to suffer from mental illness. Conclusions: The implications for practice of each of these concepts of recovery, as well as for that group of individuals for which neither concepts may apply, are discussed. Declaration of interest: None.

This report based on research interviews conducted with persons struggling to recover from prolonged psychiatric disorders suggests that the rediscovery and reconstruction of an enduring sense of the self as an active and responsible agent provides an important aspect of improvement. This process of developing a functional sense of self in the midst of persisting psychotic symptoms and dysfunction is described, and its implications for understanding severe mental illness and processes of change are discussed. It is suggested that viewing the development of a dynamic sense of self as central to the improvement process provides a coherent thread which ties together diverse research findings concerning factors influencing course and outcome of illness. It is also suggested that for treatment and rehabilitation to elicit and foster a more functional sense of self, models of improvement will need to allow for, and encourage, a more active and collaborative role for the person with the disorder.

The notion of recovery has become a dominant force in mental health policy, evident in reports of the Surgeon General and President's New Freedom Commission. In both reports, recovery is stipulated as the overarching goal of care and foundation for reforms at state and local levels. Little consensus exists regarding the nature of recovery in mental illness, however, or about the most effective ways to promote it. The authors offer a conceptual framework for distinguishing between various uses of the term, provide a definition of recovery in mental health, and conclude with a discussion of the implications of this concept for meaningful reform.

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.

The Recovery Self Assessment (RSA) was developed to gauge perceptions of the degree to which programs implement recovery-oriented practices. Nine hundred and sixty-seven directors, providers, persons in recovery, and significant others from 78 mental health and addiction programs completed the instrument. Factor analysis revealed five factors: Life Goals, Involvement, Diversity of Treatment Options, Choice, and Individually-Tailored Services. Agencies were rated highest on items related to helping people explore their interests and lowest on items regarding service user involvement in services. The RSA is a useful, self-reflective tool to identify strengths and areas for improvement as agencies strive to offer recovery-oriented care.