Recovery in Israel: A legislative recovery response to the needs–rights paradox

Roe, David; Bril-Barniv, Shani; Kravetz, Shlomo

doi:10.3109/09540261.2011.652600

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is this second understanding of recovery – personal recovery – which is meant when policies or services refer to supporting recovery, using a ‘recovery approach’ or being based on a ‘recovery model’. It is the meaning of recovery which is embedded in national mental health policy and emerging in practice internationally, including Australia [ 17 ], Canada [ 18 ], England and Wales [ 19 ], Germany [ 20 ], Hong Kong [ 21 ], Israel [ 22 ], Italy [ 23 ], the Netherlands [ 24 ], New Zealand [ 25 ], Northern Ireland [ 26 ] and the United States of America [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical evidence about recovery and mental health

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTwo discourses exist in mental health research and practice. The first focuses on the limitations associated with disability arising from mental disorder. The second focuses on the possibilities for living well with mental health problems.DiscussionThis article was prompted by a review to inform disability policy. We identify seven findings from this review: recovery is best judged by experts or using standardised assessment; few people with mental health problems recover; if a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are in remission; diagnosis is a robust basis for characterising groups and predicting need; treatment and other supports are important factors for improving outcome; the barriers to receiving effective treatment are availability, financing and client awareness; and the impact of mental illness, in particular schizophrenia, is entirely negative. We selectively review a wider range of evidence which challenge these findings, including the changing understanding of recovery, national mental health policies, systematic review methodology and undertainty, epidemiological evidence about recovery rates, reasoning biased due to assumptions about mental illness being an illness like any other, the contested nature of schizophrenia, the social construction of diagnoses, alternative explanations for psychosis experiences including the role of trauma, diagnostic over-shadowing, stigma, the technological paradigm, the treatment gap, social determinants of mental ill-health, the prevalence of voice-hearing in the general population, and the sometimes positive impact of psychosis experience in relation to perspective and purpose.ConclusionWe propose an alternative seven messages which are both empirically defensible and more helpful to mental health stakeholders: Recovery is best judged by the person living with the experience; Many people with mental health problems recover; If a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are not ill; Diagnosis is not a robust foundation; Treatment is one route among many to recovery; Some people choose not to use mental health services; and the impact of mental health problems is mixed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical evidence about recovery and mental health

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Roe et al 61,87 CBT = cognitive-behavioural therapy; DH = Department of Health; NIDA = National Institute on Drug Abuse; SAMHSA = Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration; VHA = Veterans Health Administration stronger empirical support than others, and there is still much to learn about intervention mechanisms and outcomes for different patient populations. 9,10,13 Capturing the critical ingredients and mechanisms of psychosocial interventions is complex work, but it is a necessary step in the process of implementing and evaluating these interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing a Continuum of Evidence-Based Psychosocial Interventions for People with Severe Mental Illness: Part 2—Review of Critical Implementation Issues

Briand

Menear

2014

Can J Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…57 New legislation was introduced that required providers to deliver a comprehensive basket of services, including SE, FPE, housing services, supported education, leisure activities, and case management services. 58 Implementation was supported by regional rehabilitation committees and a national rehabilitation council responsible for planning rehabilitation services in communities, improving quality and accessibility of services, and advising the government on rehabilitation policy. 58 A National Outcome Rehabilitation Monitoring Implementation Project was recently launched to perform routine evaluations of the services and impacts created by the rehabilitation legislation.…”

Section: Uk Department Of Health and National Institute For Health Anmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…58 A National Outcome Rehabilitation Monitoring Implementation Project was recently launched to perform routine evaluations of the services and impacts created by the rehabilitation legislation. 58…”

Section: Uk Department Of Health and National Institute For Health Anmentioning

confidence: 99%