Research is needed to clarify the concept of recovery and how it applies to mental health inpatient settings. The challenges to recovery-oriented practice posed by the current organization of such settings should be examined.

Despite an increasing attention towards recovery orientation in the mental health services, the provision of recovery-oriented practice is challenged in the inpatient wards. Moreover, the existing research within this area is modest and we currently have limited knowledge of how recovery-oriented practice is integrated into inpatient settings. A cornerstone of recovery-oriented practice is the collaboration, patient involvement, and choices, particularly when deciding and planning treatment options. Thus, this ethnographic study aimed to explore how recovery-oriented practice is reflected in the interactions between patients and health professionals around treatment in two mental health inpatient wards in Denmark. Participant observations were conducted in two mental health inpatient wards from November 2014 to January 2015. The Recovery Self-Assessment scale inspired the observation guide and the initial data analysis. Field notes were analysed deductively and inductively using qualitative content analysis. One theme with four subthemes emerged showing that interactions were characterized by an 'as-if collaboration' where 'negotiating on limited grounds' was an important feature of interactions, in which health professionals seemed to have superiority, acting on behalf of 'competing demands'. Patients had to navigate in a field of 'inconsistent guidance and postponed decisions' and faced tendencies of 'control and condescending communication'. The results suggest that recovery oriented values such as equal collaboration, choice and patients' personal preferences are reflected rhetorically in the interactions between patients and health professionals. However, they are negotiated within organizational logics and often overruled by competing demands.

Offering mental health treatment in line with a recovery-oriented practice has become an objective in the mental health services in many countries. However, applying recovery-oriented practice in inpatient settings seems challenged by unclear and diverging definitions of the concept in and the organization of these settings. In Denmark, educational and organizational efforts have been made to organize inpatient services with a recovery-oriented approach. Hence, we aimed to explore whether and how these efforts are reflected in the inpatients' experiences of their care and treatment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 inpatients from two mental health inpatient wards using an interview guide based on factors from the Recovery Self-Assessment. Qualitative content analysis was applied in the analysis. Six themes covering the participants' experiences were identified. The participants felt accepted and protected in the ward and found comfort in being around other people but missed talking and engaging with health professionals. They described limited choice and influence on the course of their treatment, and low information levels regarding their treatment, which they considered to consist predominantly of medication. Furthermore, they described feeling continuously observed and assessed from a distance by health professionals. Like the sparse previous research among inpatients, the results highlight ambivalent experiences of health professionals' support and ward structure as well as the medical treatment hegemony. As such, the educational and organizational efforts of introducing recovery-oriented practices in the wards seemed not very well reflected in the participants' experiences of their stay.

The results indicate the relevance of using modern technology to support shared decision making (SDM) and the recovery model, though raise the question of how the actual use in the study is to be understood. The study thereby points to a need of further research into the understanding of the central consumer-provider relationship in SDM and in how decision aids are presented. (PsycINFO Database Record

Background: Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based rehabilitation program for people with severe mental illness with the short-term aim of improving illness self-management and the long-term aim of helping people achieve clinical and personal recovery.MethodParticipants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders were recruited from three community mental health centers in the Capital Region of Denmark and randomized to receive group-based IMR and treatment as usual or only the usual intervention. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and the one-year follow-up. Long-term outcomes were categorized according to clinical recovery (i.e., symptoms, global functioning, and hospitalization) and personal recovery (i.e., hope and personal agency). Generalized linear mixed model regression analyses were used in the intent-to-treat analysis.ResultsA total of 198 participants were included. No significant differences were found between the IMR and control groups in the Global Assessment of Functioning one year after the intervention, nor were there significant differences in symptoms, number of hospital admissions, emergency room visits, or outpatient treatment.ConclusionThe present IMR trial showed no significant effect on clinical and personal recovery at the one-year follow-up. Together with the results of other IMR studies, the present study indicates that the effect of IMR on symptom severity is unclear, which raises questions regarding the impact of IMR on functioning. Additionally, IMR did not affect personal recovery. Although more research is needed, the results indicate that the development of other interventions should be considered to help people with severe mental illness achieve a better level of functioning and personal recovery.Trial registrationTrial registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01361698).

The results show that the quality of the information in many cases is insufficient. There is a strong need for quality assurance of mini-HTAs to improve the accuracy of the information, however, without harming the timeliness and the limited use of resources in producing the reports.

IMR appears not to be better than treatment as usual in any of the outcomes. Further studies with a longer follow-up period, better assessments of recovery and a systematic review of the existing trials are needed to assess if the program is effective.

ObjectiveIllness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach. The program has been evaluated in different settings; however evidence for the effects of IMR is still deficient. The aim of this trial was to investigate the benefits and harms of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual in Danish patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.MethodThe trial was designed as a randomized, assessor-blinded, multi-center, clinical trial investigating the IMR program compared with usual treatment. 198 people diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder participated. The primary outcome was the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF-F) at the end of intervention and the secondary and explorative outcomes included severity of symptoms and service utilization.ResultsIMR had no significant effect on functioning, symptoms, substance use or service utilization.ConclusionThis randomized trial contributes to the evidence base of IMR by providing a methodological solid base for its conclusions; however the trial has some important limitations. More research is needed to get a firm answer on the effectiveness of the IMR.