Mental health recovery: lived experience of consumers, carers and nurses

Abstract

Background Mental health recovery is a prominent topic of discussion in the global mental health settings. The concept of mental health recovery brought about a major shift in the traditional philosophical views of many mental health systems. Aim The purpose of this article is to outline the results of a qualitative study on mental health recovery, which involved mental health consumers, carers and mental health nurses from an Area Mental Health Service in Victoria, Australia. This paper is Part One of the results that explored the meaning of recovery. Methods The study used van Manen's hermeneutic phenomenology to analyse the data. Findings Themes suggested that the cohort had varying views on recovery that were similar and dissimilar. The similar views were categorised under two processes involving the self, an internal process and an external process. These two processes involved reclaiming various aspects of oneself, living life, cure or absence of symptoms and contribution to community. The dissimilar views involved returning to pre-illness state and recovery was impossible. Conclusion This study highlights the need for placing importance on the person's sense of self in the recovery process.

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

“…Personal recovery can generally be conceptualized according to an internal process and external process. The internal recovery process may comprise of reclaiming various aspects of the self or learning about the self to overcome the effects of mental illness (Jacob et al 2015). Nine studies described the internal recovery process with attributes such as self‐esteem, independent self, self‐realization, self‐improvement, betterment, managing aspects of daily living, and empowerment (Cleary et al 2013; Gaffey et al 2016; Gilburt et al 2013; Jackson‐Blott et al 2019; Karpetis 2018; Khoury & Rodriguez 2015; Sparkes 2018).…”

“…More specifically, the internal recovery process focused on the individuals' own goals and priorities (dreams, hopes, and aspirations), belief in the possibility of change, encouraging personal ownership, and responsibility for well‐being (Parker et al 2017), the independent self (Sparkes 2018), as well as maximizing quality of life and potential for meaningful activity (Tickle et al 2014). Alternatively, the external recovery process described how consumers are presented in the external world without being affected by symptoms of mental illness or living life in the community like everyone else (Jacob et al 2015). Six studies classified the external recovery process according to attributes such as social inclusion, relationship, and attaining an optimum level of functioning in the community (Gaffey et al 2016; Gilburt et al 2013; Jackson‐Blott et al 2019; Jacob et al 2015; Karpetis 2018; Parker et al 2017; Sellin et al 2018).…”

“…Alternatively, the external recovery process described how consumers are presented in the external world without being affected by symptoms of mental illness or living life in the community like everyone else (Jacob et al 2015). Six studies classified the external recovery process according to attributes such as social inclusion, relationship, and attaining an optimum level of functioning in the community (Gaffey et al 2016; Gilburt et al 2013; Jackson‐Blott et al 2019; Jacob et al 2015; Karpetis 2018; Parker et al 2017; Sellin et al 2018).…”

“…Specifically, one paper said that the term recovery in itself resounds of illness and being ill (Sparkes 2018) and claims that the long‐term nature of some psychiatric problems cannot be escaped (Khoury & Rodriguez 2015; Sparkes 2018). In addition, seven studies explained recovery with attributes such as medication adherence, reduction in symptoms, improved mental state, and improved behaviour, reduction in the risk of reoffending, risks and distress from the consumers (Cleary et al 2013; Gilburt et al 2013; Jackson‐Blott et al 2019; Karpetis 2018; Tickle et al 2014), return to pre‐illness state (Gilburt et al 2013; Jacob et al 2015; Khoury & Rodriguez 2015), and being better and living a normal life (Sparkes 2018). Gilburt et al (2013) suggested that MHPs are primary agents and implementers of recovery and also improved the service they provide to consumers.…”

Recovery without autonomy: Progress forward or more of the same for mental health service users?

“…However, an Australian study also found the concept of Recovery as described by significant others and service providers contrasted with the accepted definition of Recovery, with significant others and service providers inclined to define Recovery in the clinical sense of cure or return to pre‐illness state (Jacob et al . ). This is consistent with earlier findings on the contrasting definitions of Recovery from people with a diagnosis and service providers (Aston & Coffey ).…”