Stages of Recovery Instrument: Development of a Measure of Recovery from Serious Mental Illness

Andresen, Retta; Caputi, Peter; Oades, Lindsay G.

doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2006.01921.x

Cited by 257 publications

(192 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

180

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…30 It has demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability (r = 0.88), good internal consistency (a = 0.93) and convergent validity with measures of empowerment, self-esteem, social support and quality of life and hope. 27,31 Convergent validity has also been established with other recovery measures including the Mental Health Recovery Measure, 32 Stages of Recovery Instrument (STORI) 33,34 and QPR. 4 This makes it appropriate to use as a benchmark for personal recovery.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter: preliminary validation of a personal recovery measure

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and methodThe Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter (I.ROC) is to date the only recovery outcomes instrument developed in Scotland. This paper describes the steps taken to initially assess its validity and reliability, including factorial analysis, internal consistency and a correlation benchmarking analysis.ResultsThe I.ROC tool showed high internal consistency. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a two-factor structure comprising intrapersonal recovery (factor 1) and interpersonal recovery (factor 2), explaining between them over 50% of the variance in I.ROC scores. There were no redundant items and all loaded on at least one of the factors. The I.ROC significantly correlated with widely used existing instruments assessing both personal recovery and clinical outcomes.Clinical implicationsI.ROC is a valid and reliable measure of recovery in mental health, preferred by service users when compared with well-established instruments. It could be used in clinical settings to map individual recovery, providing feedback for service users and helping to assess service outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter: preliminary validation of a personal recovery measure

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It builds on previous conceptual work defining stages of recovery. 9,10 Having friends was important for recovery, and connecting with others through shared interests and activities can be therapeutic, although not all relationships and social interactions are experienced as positive or supportive. 11 Activities can provide structure and meaning, and the benefits of volunteering and work are well documented for people with SM1.…”

Section: The Research Was Interested Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving community health networks for people with severe mental illness: a case study investigation

Pinfold

Sweet

Porter³

et al. 2015

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionPolicy drivers in mental health to address personal recovery, stigma and poor physical health indicate that new service solutions are required. This study aimed to understand how connections to people, places and activities were utilised by individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) to benefit health and wellbeing.MethodsA five-module mixed-methods design was undertaken in two study sites. Data were collected from 150 network-mapping interviews and 41 in-depth follow-up interviews with people with SMI; in-depth interviews with 30 organisation stakeholders and 12 organisation leaders; and 44 telephone interviews with practitioners. We undertook a three-stage synthesis process including independent lived experience feedback, and a patient and public involvement team participated in tool design, data collection, analysis and write-up.ResultsThree personal network types were found in our study using the community health network approach: diverse and active; family and stable; formal and sparse. Controlled for other factors we found only four variables significantly associated with which network type a participant had: living alone or not; housing status; formal education; long-term sickness or disability. Diagnosis was not a factor. These variables are challenging to address but they do point to potential for network change. The qualitative interviews with people with SMI provided further understanding of connection-building and resource utilisation. We explored individual agency across each network type, and identified recognition of the importance and value of social support and active connection management alongside the risks of isolation, even for those most affected by mental illness. We identified tensions in personal networks, be that relationships with practitioners or families, dealing with the impact of stigma, or frustrations of not being in employment, which all impact on network resources and well-being. The value of connectedness within personal networks of people, place and activity for supporting recovery was evident in shaping identity, providing meaning to life and sense of belonging, gaining access to new resources, structuring routines and helping individuals ‘move on’ in their recovery journey.Health-care practitioners recognised that social factors were important in recovery but reported system-level barriers (workload, administrative bureaucracy, limited contact time with clients) in addressing these issues fully. Even practitioners working in third-sector services whose remit involved increasing clients’ social connection faced restrictions due to being evaluated by outcome criteria that limited holistic recovery-focused practices. Service providers were keen to promote recovery-focused approaches. We found contrasts between recovery ideology within mental health policy and recovery practice on the ground. In particular, the social aspects of supporting people with SMI are often underprioritised in the health-care system. In a demanding and changing context, strategic multiagency working was seen as crucial but we found few examples of embedded multisector organisation partnerships.ConclusionWhile our exploratory study has limitations, findings suggest potential for people with SMI to be supported to become more active managers of their personal networks to support well-being regardless of current network type. The health and social care system does not currently deliver multiagency integrated solutions to support SMI and social recovery.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

“…Given that recovery is represented by consumers as a unique, personal journey, there has been a reticence to define it as an outcome (Torrey et al, 2005), however, some recovery The inclusion of three recovery measures: the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS; Corrigan et al, 1999), the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM; Young and Bullock, 2003), and the Self-identified Stage of Recovery (SISR; Andresen et al, 2006) with four conventional clinical measures in a large multi-site study (Oades et al, 2005) provides an opportunity to test the construct validity of recovery measurement. First, we build on preliminary work (McNaught et al, 2007) to address the questions (1) Do recovery measures demonstrate convergent validity?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery?

Andresen

Caputi

Oades

2010

Psychiatry Research

Self Cite

177

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an international call for mental health services to become recovery-oriented, and also to use evidence based practices. Addressing this call requires recovery-oriented measurement of outcomes and service evaluation.Mental health consumers view recovery as leading as meaningful life, and have criticised traditional clinical measures for being too disability-oriented. This study compares three measures of consumer-defined recovery fromenduring mental illness: the Recovery Assessment Scale, the Mental Health Recovery Measure and the Self-Identified Stage of Recovery, with four conventional clinical measures. Correlational analyses supported the convergent validity of the recovery measures, although certain subscaleswere unrelated to each other. More importantly, little relationship was found between consumer-defined recovery and the clinical measures. Analyses of variance revealed that scores on the recovery measures increased across self-identified stage of recovery, but scores onmost clinicalmeasures did not improve consistently across stage of recovery. The findings demonstrate the qualitative difference between the two types of measures, supporting the claim by consumers that clinical measures do not assess important aspects of recovery. There is a need for further research and refinement of recovery measurement, including assessment of stages of recovery, with the aimof including such measures as an adjunct in routine clinical assessment, service evaluation and research. © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Stages of Recovery Instrument: Development of a Measure of Recovery from Serious Mental Illness

Cited by 257 publications

References 26 publications

The Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter: preliminary validation of a personal recovery measure

The Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter: preliminary validation of a personal recovery measure

Improving community health networks for people with severe mental illness: a case study investigation

Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About