Recovery as a Lived Experience Discipline: A Grounded Theory Study

Abstract

Recovery is government mandated and a core facet of mental health reform. However, Recovery implementation in this country (Australia) has been inhibited by a lack of education of, and understanding from, clinicians. A grounded theory study was undertaken to explore the potential and existing role of lived experience practitioners in assisting meaningful implementations of Recovery within the Australian mental health sector. In-depth interviews were conducted with 13 people employed to work from a lived experience perspective. The findings suggest participants have experienced and observed significant barriers to the implementation of Recovery-focused practice while operating in lived experience roles. Three main issues emerged: (1) Recovery co-opted, (2) Recovery uptake, and (3) Recovery denial. For a genuine Recovery-focused mental health system to be developed, lived experience practitioners must be enabled to take their role as Recovery experts and leaders. Lived experience practitioners are the logical leaders of Recovery implementation due to their own internal experience and understandings of Recovery and the wider lived experience movement's development and championing of the concepts.

Recovery‐oriented practice: Participant observations of the interactions between patients and health professionals in mental health inpatient settings

“…For instance, in a qualitative study of user involvement Wright et al (2016) report that practice is driven by organizational logistics rather than the individual needs of the patients and raise the concern that patient voices are often lost in the system where their needs become secondary to clearing a bed for others. These concerns seem justified by our results and are further fuelled by Byrne et al (2015) who report that lived experience workers find that the concept of personal recovery has been altered from its original meaning into something resembling clinical recovery in the process of being adopted into the mental health services. Stenhouse (2011), Hyde et al (2015, Sharac et al (2010), and Waldemar et al (2018) conjure that health professionals are busy doing administrative and practical tasks rather than engaging with patients.…”

Doing what we can, but knowing our place: Being an ally to promote consumer leadership in mental health

“…Such experiences are likely to make consumers cautious about working collaboratively with allies, reflecting the fear they might be further marginalized and their specialist knowledge taken from them and sometimes used against them (Byrne et al . ). Supporting a recovery approach to practice is an important role for allies.…”

“…Effectively, the uptake of recovery has led to its co‐option as an approach or model defined and directed by health professionals, with its origins within the mental health consumer movement ignored (Byrne et al . ). Such experiences are likely to make consumers cautious about working collaboratively with allies, reflecting the fear they might be further marginalized and their specialist knowledge taken from them and sometimes used against them (Byrne et al .…”

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

“…Recent research advocates for a greater presence of people with a diagnosis/lived experience leading education and training of Recovery concepts, to ensure more meaningful communication of the concepts (Byrne et al . , In Press).…”

“…The latter two response options were collapsed into the category 'More than 5 years'. The rationale for assessing the time of contact with mental health care services was that as treatment approaches in mental health care have changed in the last decades (Byrne et al 2015), the approach people experienced at the time of contact with mental health care services likely influenced the importance people place on various treatment approaches, as well as their awareness of principles underpinning the Recovery approach in mental health.…”