No abstract

Aims and MethodInvolvement of service users in the research process and examination of recovery from psychosis are two topics that have generated recent interest within the research community. This user-led study examines the subjective experience of recovery in people with experience of psychosis. Seven interviews were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis and several themes emerged from the data.ResultsRecovery from psychosis was found to be a complex and idiosyncratic process, which often involved rebuilding life, rebuilding self and hope for a better future (each of these themes consisted of sub-themes).Clinical ImplicationsThe importance of continuity of care, the need for greater choice in approaches aimed at alleviating distress, access to stories of recovery and encouragement, and the importance of more individualised recovery care plans are among factors highlighted.

Aims and MethodTo explore the impact of diagnosis on people who experience psychosis. Eight participants were interviewed about the impact that diagnosis had on them.ResultsThe research found that the impact of diagnosis can involve both positive and negative elements. It can be a ‘means of access’ as well as a ‘cause of disempowerment’. It can help by ‘naming the problem’ and hinder by ‘labelling the person’. It is a ‘cause of social exclusion’ for all, but despite this service users can be successful in ‘achieving social inclusion’.Clinical ImplicationsThe findings have implications for how diagnosis is imparted by psychiatrists if they are to help to facilitate recovery and social inclusion.

This paper describes how Service Users and researchers worked together to develop a measure of recovery from psychosis "the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery from psychosis" (QPR, Neil et al., 2009), and illustrates this experience from both perspectives. The obstacles faced and how these were overcome are described. It was found that it was possible for Service Users and non-Service Users to work collaboratively, that there were unique contributions from each and a sharing of areas of expertise, for example, research knowledge and expertise by experience. This paper highlights advantages of working collaboratively. It is hoped that sharing these experiences will encourage other researchers and Service Users to embrace this way of working.

Most people had strong preferences about treatment delivery and a substantial number did not wish to receive additional therapy. These findings have to be considered when planning and allocating resources for people with psychosis.