Integrating Evidence-Based Practices and the Recovery Model

Abstract

Consumer advocacy has emerged as an important factor in mental health policy during the past few decades. Winning consumer support for evidence-based practices requires recognition that consumers' desires and needs for various types of treatments and services differ significantly. The authors suggest that the degree of support for evidence-based practices by consumer advocates depends largely on the degree of disability of the persons for whom they are advocating. Advocates such as members of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, who focus on the needs of the most seriously disabled consumers, are most likely to be highly supportive of research that is grounded in evidence-based practices. On the other hand, advocates who focus more on the needs of consumers who are further along their road to recovery are more likely to be attracted to the recovery model. Garnering the support of this latter group entails ensuring that consumers, as they recover, are given increasing autonomy and greater input about the types of treatments and services they receive. The authors suggest ways to integrate evidence-based practices with the recovery model and then suggest a hybrid theory that maximizes the virtues and minimizes the weaknesses of each model.

How Evidence-Based Practices Contribute to Community Integration

“…Another valid concern is the relationship of EBPs to the consumer movement and particularly to consumer-run alternatives (Frese, Stanley, Kress, & Vogel-Scibilia, 2001;Tracy, 2003). Given that consumer-run services do not have a strong empirical base, some consumers fear that the hard-won financial support for consumer-run programs obtained over the past decade will erode with the growth of the EBP movement.…”

Fostering Recovery from Life-transforming Mental Health Disorders: A Synthesis and Model

“…To date, most research and publications have explored "better outcomes"-primarily domain-specific, such as social or vocational recovery, relapse prevention, symptom control, and recoveries from acute episodes (Hoffmann & Kupper, 2002;Russinova, Wewiorski, Lyass, Rogers, & Massaro, 2002;Whitehorn, Brown, Richard, Rui, & Kopala, 2002), or on recovery-based treatment programs and personal empowerment in the treatment and rehabilitation process (Anthony, 1993;Deegan, 1988;Fisher, 1994;Frese, Stanley, Kress, & Vogel-Scibilia, 2001). Consistent with this focus, most existing models have been developed as part of treatment programs (Ahern & Fisher, 1999;Anthony & Liberman, 1986;Spaniol, Koehler, & Hutchinson, 1994;Townsend, Boyd, Griffin, & Hicks, 1999), concentrating little on aspects of recovery outside the immediate realm of mental health services.…”

“…Some argue that evidenced-based, technical approaches to treatment are most appropriate and effective for individuals severely affected by their mental health problems, and that persondirected approaches are more appropriate as individuals progress toward recovery (Frese et al, 2001). Such transitional approaches, besides not having been evaluated for effectiveness, appear to conflict with the need to develop agency and control very early in the recovery process.…”

Fidelity Criteria: Development, Measurement, and Validation

“…Consumers and family members see access to treatment practices that are strongly supported by research as an appropriate expectation of any system of care in the human services Frese, Stanley, Kress, & Vogel-Scibilia, 2001;NH-Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center, 2002). Researchers and evaluators should, thus, be concerned about the extent to which their work contributes to determinations as to whether an intervention, service, or program model that they study is evidence-based or not.…”