A five-stage model compatible with psychological recovery is proposed, which offers a way forward for attaining recovery-orientated outcomes. After further empirical investigation, a version of this model could be utilized in quantitative research, clinical training and consumer education.

SummaryAims– To review developments in recovery-focussed mental health services internationally.Methods– Two forms of ‘recovery’ which have been used in the literature are considered, and international examples of recovery-focussed initiatives reviews. A ‘litmus test’ for a recovery-focussed service is proposed.Results– ‘Clinical recovery’ has emerged from professional literature, focuses on sustained remission and restoration of functioning, is invariant across individuals, and has been used to establish rates of recovery. ‘Personal recovery’ has emerged from consumer narratives, focuses on living a satisfying, hopeful and contributing life even with limitations caused by the illness, varies across individuals, and the empirical evidence base relates to stages of change more than overall prevalence rates. Clinical and personal recovery are different. Two innovative, generalisable and empirically investigated examples are given of implementing a focus on personal recovery: the Collaborative Recovery Model in Australia, and Trialogues in German-speaking Europe. The role of medication is an indicator: services in which all service users are prescribed medication, in which the term ‘compliance’ is used, in which the reasoning bias is present of attributing improvement to medication and deterioration to the person, and in which contact with and discussion about the service user revolves around medication issues, are not personal recovery-focussed services.Conclusions– The term ‘Recovery’ has been used in different ways, so conceptual clarity is important. Developing a focus on personal recovery is more than a cosmetic change – it will entail fundamental shifts in the values of mental health services.Declaration of Interest: None.

The relationship between coach leadership, the coach-athlete relationship, team success, and the positive developmental experiences of adolescent soccer players

Objective: In order to realize the vision of recovery-orientated mental health services, there is a need for a model and a method of measuring recovery as the concept is described by mental health consumers. A preliminary five-stage model based on consumer accounts was developed in an earlier study by the authors. This next stage of the research program describes the development and initial testing of a stage measure which, when validated, can be used in testing that model. Method: Existing measures of recovery were reviewed to assess their concordance with the model, and a new measure, the Stages of Recovery Instrument (STORI) was subsequently developed. A postal survey was conducted of 94 volunteers from the NISAD Schizophrenia Research Register. Participants completed the STORI and measures of mental health, psychological wellbeing, hope, resilience and recovery. Results: The STORI correlated with all of the psychological health variables, and the five stage subscales were found to be internally consistent. An ordinal relationship between the stage subscales was demonstrated by the intercorrelations of the subscale scores and the pattern of correlations between the subscales and the other measures. However, a cluster analysis of items revealed an overlap in measurement of adjacent stages, with only three clear clusters emerging. Conclusions: The results provide preliminary empirical validation of the STORI as a measure of the consumer definition of recovery. However, refinement of the measure is needed to improve its capacity to discriminate between the stages of the model. The model could then be comprehensively tested using longitudinal methods and the inclusion of objective measures.

There is an international call for mental health services to become recovery-oriented, and also to use evidence based practices. Addressing this call requires recovery-oriented measurement of outcomes and service evaluation.Mental health consumers view recovery as leading as meaningful life, and have criticised traditional clinical measures for being too disability-oriented. This study compares three measures of consumer-defined recovery fromenduring mental illness: the Recovery Assessment Scale, the Mental Health Recovery Measure and the Self-Identified Stage of Recovery, with four conventional clinical measures. Correlational analyses supported the convergent validity of the recovery measures, although certain subscaleswere unrelated to each other. More importantly, little relationship was found between consumer-defined recovery and the clinical measures. Analyses of variance revealed that scores on the recovery measures increased across self-identified stage of recovery, but scores onmost clinicalmeasures did not improve consistently across stage of recovery. The findings demonstrate the qualitative difference between the two types of measures, supporting the claim by consumers that clinical measures do not assess important aspects of recovery. There is a need for further research and refinement of recovery measurement, including assessment of stages of recovery, with the aimof including such measures as an adjunct in routine clinical assessment, service evaluation and research. © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

No abstract

No abstract

Despite the rapid growth and uptake of the positive psychological perspective by researchers and general audiences, hype regarding the field's potential can lead to exaggerated claims, overinflated expectations, disillusionment, dismissal, and unintentional harms. To help mature the field, we propose Systems Informed Positive Psychology (SIPP), which explicitly incorporates principles and concepts from the systems sciences into positive psychology theory, methodologies, practices, and discourse to optimize human social systems and the individuals within them. We describe historical underpinnings of SIPP, outline the SIPP perspective, clarify epistemological, political, and ethical assumptions, and highlight implications for research and practice. We suggest that SIPP can generate possibilities for creating sustainable unimagined futures.