Measures of Personal Recovery: A Systematic Review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Mental health systems internationally have adopted a goal of supporting recovery. Measurement of the experience of recovery is, therefore, a priority. The aim of this review was to identify and analyze recovery measures in relation to their fit with recovery and their psychometric adequacy. METHODS A systematic search of six data sources for articles, Web-based material, and conference presentations related to measurement of recovery was conducted by using a defined search strategy. Results were filtered by title and by abstract (by two raters in the case of abstracts), and the remaining papers were reviewed to identify any suitable measures of recovery. Measures were then evaluated for their fit with the recovery processes identified in the CHIME framework (connectedness, hope, identity, meaning, and empowerment) and for demonstration of nine predefined psychometric properties. RESULTS Thirteen measures of personal recovery were identified from 336 abstracts and 35 articles. The Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) was published most, and the Questionnaire About the Process of Recovery (QPR) was the only measure to have all items map to the CHIME framework. No measure demonstrated all nine psychometric properties. The Stages of Recovery Instrument demonstrated the most psychometric properties (N=6), followed by the Maryland Assessment of Recovery (N=5), and the QPR and the RAS (N=4). Criterion validity, responsiveness, and feasibility were particularly underinvestigated properties. CONCLUSIONS No recovery measure can currently be unequivocally recommended, although the QPR most closely maps to the CHIME framework of recovery and the RAS is most widely published.

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the management of schizophrenia and related disorders

“…developed to measure individual recovery (Shanks et al, 2013) and the recovery-orientation of services (Williams et al, 2012), which should enable more research and evaluation.…”

Recovery Assessment Scale: Testing validity with Portuguese community-based mental health organization users.

“…The RAS was implemented across a number of countries, therefore accomplishing a sound empirical evidence base (Cavelti et al, 2012;Salzer & Brusilovskiy, 2014;Shanks et al, 2013).…”

From the rhetoric to the real: A critical review of how the concepts of recovery and social inclusion may inform mental health nurse advanced level curricula — The eMenthe project

“…Stickley and Wright (2011) observed that in their systematic review of the British literature from January 2006 to December 2009 there are very few research papers focusing specifically on the recovery and mental health concept, furthermore, in their systematic review of the literature directly related to mental health and social inclusion, Wright and Stickley (2013), drew similar conclusions. However conducting this current review, we discovered that in more recent years research directly related to recovery has escalated, especially in relation to understanding the concept, attempting to measure this and suggestions for service development (Borg and Davidson, 2008;Leamy et al, 2011Leamy et al, , 2014Kartalova-O'Doherty et al, 2012;Slade, 2012;Williams et al, 2012;Daley et al, 2013;Gilbert et al, 2013;Shanks et al, 2013). One significant contribution to the knowledge-base of the recovery concept is by Leamy et al (2011) who conducted a narrative synthesis of the literature on personal recovery in order to establish a conceptual framework.…”