Knowledge and attitude regarding recovery among mental health practitioners in Sweden

Abstract

The aim was to investigate the knowledge and the attitude regarding recovery among practitioners working in the Swedish mental health system, Personligt Ombud (PO), Supported Housing Team (SHT) and Psychiatric Out Patient Service (POPS), to determine whether and how knowledge and attitude regarding recovery differ between the three services. A web-based questionnaire based on the Recovery Knowledge Inventory was sent to the participants. Participant selection ensured that different parts of Sweden were represented. A multiple linear regression was used to examine the result under control of Sex, Age, Educational Level, Further Education, Relevant Work Experience and Training in Recovery. The result of the regression showed that POs had higher scores than both SHT and POPS on the subscales, even under control of other variables. The SHT differed significantly from POs on two of the subscales and POPS differed significantly from POs on all subscales. Personnel with university education, more work experience or specific training in recovery also had a higher mean score. Swedish practitioners need to learn more about certain aspects of the recovery process. The differences between the services may possibly be due to the services' organization, assignment and role. Other important aspects were the level of education and having specific training in recovery; the combination of these elements could facilitate the development of a recovery-oriented mental health system.

Knowledge and attitudes of mental health professionals and students regarding recovery: A systematic review

“…A study reported that health professionals with experience in mental illness had significantly less variation in their knowledge score compared with those without experience (Doughty et al 2008). However, Klockmo et al (2012) reported otherwise. Regarding profession, Hardiman and Hodges (2008) reported that psychologists were less likely to be familiar with the recovery literature compared with other professionals (e.g.…”

Transplanting recovery: Research and practice in the Nordic countries

“…Two of the others reported on cohort studies aimed at following up the extent of recovery in severe mental illness (Arvidsson, 2011;Lauronen et al, 2005), and one reported on a questionnaire study assessing recovery-oriented attitudes of three personnel groups involved in service provision (Klockmo et al, 2012). No position papers or literature reviews were found.…”

“…In the majority of the qualitative studies, diagnosis was self-reported. One study focused on staff in mental health services (Klockmo et al, 2012) and one on a combination of both staff and patients (Färdig et al, 2011b).…”

“…A number of studies were concerned with the social environment for recovery , including the centrality of social relationships (Denhov & Topor, 2011;Schön et al, 2009) and community environments, as well as the importance of meeting material needs and the adequacy of services and support. Factors described as crucial to a recovery orientation in practice included the roles of professionals, their attitudes, education and training, their ability to engage in relationships and convey hope and their ability to support the complexities in the individual's change process (Borg & Kristiansen, 2004;Klockmo et al, 2012). Therapeutic relationships which are characterised by hopefulness were also seen as helpful to the recovery process (Torgalsboen, 2001).…”

“…Factors described as crucial to personal recovery such as adequate material conditions , helping relationships in mental health services (Borg & Kristiansen, 2004) and a positive culture of healing were confirmed (Kogstad et al, 2011), but not problematised on the basis of potential cultural or social differences. In the few instances when specific factors for the Nordic countries were identified, these referred to different systems and organisational structures for providing mental health services, or described the role of user organisations (Schön, 2011) or professionals in promoting recovery (Klockmo et al, 2012).…”