How Young Adults in London Experience the Clubhouse Model of Mental Health Recovery: A Thematic Analysis

Abstract

Clubhouses are recovery orientated, participatory communities in which people with mental health diagnoses can take part in the running of the clubhouse. The objective of this research was to produce the first qualitative study of its kind, examining how the clubhouse model of mental health recovery is perceived and experienced by young adults aged 16-25. Five participants provided lengthy and detailed semi-structured interviews regarding their experiences as members of a clubhouse in London. Analysis produced themes including mixed age services as a distinct benefit, the benefits of getting involved in the work of the clubhouse, the mostly positive perception of the clubhouse compared with other mental health services, and the sense of personal change and social improvement experienced on becoming members of the clubhouse. While further research is needed, it was concluded that the clubhouse model was beneficial to all its young members, for reasons including its entirely collaborative and consultative process between staff and members, its humanitarian approach, its lack of rigid or inflexible time limits, and its reciprocal relationships, where members are expected to both provide and receive support.

“Finally, I belong somewhere I can be proud of” – Experiences of being a Clubhouse member in Norway

“…A strong sense of demotivation seemed to dominate participants' lives, which admittedly changed for the better after they joined the Clubhouse. In line with previous research (Kinn et al, 2018;Norman, 2006;Pardi & Willis, 2018;Roth, 2017), we found that individuals gained several positive life experiences after becoming a member at a Clubhouse, so their range of available RRs have increased.…”

“…Finally, the results of this study correspond with those of previous international research in the field (Biegel et al, 2013;Jung & Kim, 2012;Norman, 2006;Pardi & Willis, 2018;Roth, 2017;Tanaka et al, 2015;Tanaka & Davidson, 2015a, 2015b, suggesting that being a Clubhouse member is a similar experience across countries, social systems, and cultures.…”

“…Similar to previous research (see for example, Hancock, Bundy, Honey, Helich, & Tamsett, 2013;Kennedy-Jones, Cooper, & Fossey, 2005;Norman, 2006;Tanaka & Davidson, 2015a), this study revealed that participating in the Clubhouse community provided individuals with regular and meaningful activities. In fact, consistent with our results, Clubhouse members generally report that their work at the Clubhouse made them feel "useful" and promoted their inclusion by allowing them-in the words of our participants-to contribute to "something bigger than themselves," which constitutes an important experience improving selfperception (Antonovsky, 1987;Norman, 2006;Pardi & Willis, 2018;Tanaka & Davidson, 2015a).…”

“…Thus, aspects such as promoting autonomy, partnership, codetermination, and inclusion are staples of a recovery-oriented service. While few explicit findings are available on Clubhouse members' perceptions of attending other programs from previous studies (see for example, Pardi & Willis, 2018), our results indicate that the mental health care field in Norway has room to improve its practices according to recovery-oriented policies (Norwegian Directorate of Health, 2014; World Health Organization, 2013) and principles (Anthony & Mizock, 2014;Davidson, Rakfeldt, & Strauss, 2010;Le Boutillier et al, 2011;Shanks et al, 2013). However, more research is needed to elaborate on these findings.…”

Experiences and satisfaction of children, young people and their parents with alternative mental health models to inpatient settings: a systematic review

“…The 19 studies included in this review came from 5 different countries; 8 studies came from the UK [21,22,[25][26][27][28][29][30], 5 from the US [31][32][33][34][35], 3 from Australia [36][37][38], 2 from Canada [39,40] and 1 from Denmark [41]. Eight studies utilised a qualitative methodology [25,28,29,34,[36][37][38]40] and two studies were based on a qualitative case-study approach [22,33]. In contrast, three studies followed a quantitative descriptive approach [30,35,39], while one study had a mixed-methods design [26].…”