An understanding of recovery as a personal and subjective experience has emerged within mental health systems. This meaning of recovery now underpins mental health policy in many countries. Developing a focus on this type of recovery will involve transformation within mental health systems. Human systems do not easily transform. In this paper, we identify seven mis-uses ("abuses") of the concept of recovery: recovery is the latest model; recovery does not apply to "my" patients; services can make people recover through effective treatment; compulsory detention and treatment aid recovery; a recovery orientation means closing services; recovery is about making people independent and normal; and contributing to society happens only after the person is recovered. We then identify ten empirically-validated interventions which support recovery, by targeting key recovery processes of connectedness, hope, identity, meaning and empowerment (the CHIME framework). The ten interventions are peer support workers, advance directives, wellness recovery action planning, illness management and recovery, REFOCUS, strengths model, recovery colleges or recovery education programs, individual placement and support, supported housing, and mental health trialogues. Finally, three scientific challenges are identified: broadening cultural understandings of recovery, implementing organizational transformation, and promoting citizenship.

In the decades of the 1990s many mental health programs and the systems that fund these programs have identified themselves as recovery-oriented. A program that is grounded in a vision of recovery is based on the notion that a majority of people can grow beyond the catastrophe of a severe mental illness and lead a meaningful life in their own community. First person accounts of recovery and empirical research have led to a developing consensus about the service delivery values underlying recovery. The emphasis on recovery-oriented programming has been concurrent with a focus in the field on evidence-based practices. We propose that evidence based practices be implemented in a manner that is recovery compatible. Program dimensions for evidence based practice, such as program mission, policies, procedures, record keeping and staffing should be consistent with recovery values in order for a program to be considered to be recovery-oriented. This article describes the critical dimensions of such value based practice, regardless of the service the recovery oriented mental health programs provide (e.g., treatment, case management, rehabilitation). The aim of this first attempt at conceptualizing recovery-oriented mental health programs is to both provide direction to those involved in program implementation of evidence based mental health practices, as well as providing a stimulus for further discussion in the field.

Background Narratives of recovery from mental health distress have played a central role in the establishment of the recovery paradigm within mental health policy and practice. As use of recovery narratives increases within services, it is critical to understand how they have been characterised, and what may be missing from their characterisation thus far. The aim of this review was to synthesise published typologies in order to develop a conceptual framework characterising mental health recovery narratives. Method A systematic review was conducted of published literature on the characteristics of mental health recovery narratives. Narrative synthesis involved identifying characteristics and organising them into dimensions and types; and subgroup analysis based on study quality, narrator involvement in analysis, diagnosis of psychosis and experience of trauma. The synthesis was informed by consultation with a Lived Experience Advisory Panel and an academic panel. The review protocol was pre-registered (Prospero CRD42018090188). Results 8951 titles, 366 abstracts and 121 full-text articles published January 2000-July 2018 were screened, of which 45 studies analysing 629 recovery narratives were included. A conceptual framework of mental health recovery narratives was developed, comprising nine dimensions (Genre; Positioning; Emotional Tone; Relationship with Recovery; Trajectory; Use of Turning Points; Narrative Sequence; Protagonists; and Use of Metaphors), each containing between two and six types. Subgroup analysis indicated all dimensions were present across most subgroups, with Turning Points particularly evident in trauma-related studies. Conclusions Recovery narratives are diverse and multidimensional. They may be non-linear and reject coherence. To a greater extent than illness narratives, they incorporate social, political and rights aspects. Approaches to supporting development of recovery narratives should expand rather than reduce available choices. Research into the narratives of more diverse populations is needed. The review supports trauma-informed approaches, and highlights the need to understand and support post-traumatic growth for people experiencing mental health issues.

Psychiatric rehabilitation has become accepted by the mental health field as a legitimate field of study and practice. Over the last several decades various psychiatric rehabilitation programme models and procedures have been developed, evaluated and disseminated. At the same time the process of psychiatric rehabilitation has been specified and its underlying values and practitioner technology articulated. This review describes the psychiatric rehabilitation process and in so doing differentiates psychosocial interventions that can be classified as psychiatric rehabilitation interventions from other psychosocial interventions. Furthermore, the major psychiatric rehabilitation interventions are examined within a framework of the psychiatric rehabilitation process with a review of their evidence. The review concludes that psychiatric rehabilitation interventions are currently a mixture of evidence-based practices, promising practices and emerging methods that can be effectively tied together using the psychiatric rehabilitation process framework of helping individuals with serious mental illnesses choose, get and keep valued roles, and together with complementary treatment orientated psychosocial interventions, provide a broad strategy for facilitating recovery.

Recovery has come to mean living a life beyond mental illness, and recovery orientation is policy in many countries. The aims of this study were to investigate what staff say they do to support recovery and to identify what they perceive as barriers and facilitators associated with providing recovery-oriented support. Data collection included ten focus groups with multidisciplinary clinicians (n = 34) and team leaders (n = 31), and individual interviews with clinicians (n = 18), team leaders (n = 6) and senior managers (n = 8). The identified core category was Competing Priorities, with staff identifying conflicting system priorities that influence how recovery-oriented practice is implemented. Three sub-categories were: Health Process Priorities, Business Priorities, and Staff Role Perception. Efforts to transform services towards a recovery orientation require a whole-systems approach.

No abstract

The Boston University center exposed the field to information through presentations, print- and Web-based information, provided consumers and family members with new findings through motivational videotapes, developed expertise-level training programs, and embedded the new findings within organizations and systems. The 4 E framework can translate critical research outcomes into useful information to assist the field to better care and support available for individuals in late life.

Mental health peer specialists are individuals with serious mental illnesses who receive training to use their lived experiences to help others with serious mental illnesses in clinical settings. This Open Forum discusses the state of the research for mental health peer specialists and suggests a research agenda to advance the field. Studies have suggested that peer specialists vary widely in their roles, settings, and theoretical orientations. Theories of action have been proposed, but none have been tested. Outcome studies have shown benefits of peer specialists; however, many studies have methodological shortcomings. Qualitative descriptions of peer specialists are plentiful but lack grounding in implementation science frameworks. A research agenda advancing the field could include empirically testing theoretical mechanisms of peer specialists, developing a measure of peer specialist fidelity, conducting more rigorous outcomes studies, involving peer specialists in executing the research, and assessing various factors that influence implementing peer specialist services and testing strategies that could address those factors.