Uncovering Recovery: The Resistible Rise of Recovery and Resilience

Harper, David J.; Speed, Ewen

doi:10.26522/ssj.v6i1.1066

Cited by 170 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Connectedness (having good relationships), hope (having hope that recovery is possible and support to achieve this), identity (having a positive sense of self), meaning (living a purposeful life), and empowerment (having control over life) (CHIME) is proposed as a framework of what is necessary for a person to experience recovery in terms of their mental health (Leamy, Bird, Le Boutillier, Williams, & Slade, 2011). While the very concept of recovery in the context of mental health is highly contested (see Harper & Speed, 2013) and can be described as having been co-opted by policymakers (Recovery in the Bin, 2019), we draw upon it within this discussion because policy in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2017) states that people with mental health problems should expect recovery and to be free from stigma. These findings suggest that having to claim social security benefits for a mental health problem makes it difficult to achieve any aspect of recovery as defined by CHIME (Leamy et al, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and improving the experience of claiming social security for mental health problems in the west of Scotland: A participatory social welfare study

Ploetner

Telford

Brækkan

et al. 2019

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of literature links claimant interactions with the UK social security system and negative psychological consequences. Psychologists for social change developed a framework to outline proposed mechanisms of psychological impact from austerity. This codesigned study aimed to make an informed comment on areas of dis(agreement) between the Austerity Ailments framework and how people claiming for mental health problems describe their own experiences. In line with the participatory social welfare design of the study, qualitative analysis was performed by both claimants and academics. The overall findings indicate that existing framework mostly captured claimant experiences. However, some aspects of the claimant experience (particularly social aspects) were not well captured. Claimants were keen to utilise this study as an opportunity to gather claimant ideas on how to improve the system. Therefore, we report their suggestions that may be useful for those designing and improving social welfare systems

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and improving the experience of claiming social security for mental health problems in the west of Scotland: A participatory social welfare study

Ploetner

Telford

Brækkan

et al. 2019

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A focus on recovery creates challenges for clinicians and patients. Clinicians have the uncomfortable experience of competing priorities 42 leading to role tensions 43 , yet advocates raise concerns that recovery is being "commandeered" 44 to individualize social problems, to de-politicize individual experience and to remain focussed on deficit amelioration 45 . The recommendation that sociological research is needed to understand the socio-cultural meaning and implications of recovery 46 is probably equally applicable to SDM.…”

Section: Shared Decision Making Is a Polyvalent Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non‐maleficence. It is argued that SDM is “polyvalent”, a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high‐quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery‐supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes – social marketing and the hospitality industry – are identified.

show abstract

“…This collaborative approach to the research process involves producing evidence with drug users rather than about them through working in partnership with drug users at all stages of the research process (Campbell and Vanderhoven 2016). For Harper and Speed (2012) individual narratives can be powerful when they are linked together to reveal collective lived experiences, which demonstrate the connections between individual lives and wider social, political and economic struggles. A co-production model can facilitate this and produce practical and policy-relevant research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experts, Expertise and Drug Policymaking

Monaghan

Wincup

Wicker

2018

Howard J Crime Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past two decades, policymakers have been encouraged to develop evidence‐based policies in collaboration with experts. Drug policy is unique since it has an established inbuilt mechanism for soliciting expertise via the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Increasingly alternative mechanisms have been used. Based upon detailed analysis of two case studies of drug policymaking using alternative methods to solicit expertise, we argue that the framing of the policy problem, the mechanisms used to involve experts and the type of evidence actively sought, have continued to marginalise the involvement of the drug user in policymaking.

show abstract

Uncovering Recovery: The Resistible Rise of Recovery and Resilience

Cited by 170 publications

References 32 publications

Understanding and improving the experience of claiming social security for mental health problems in the west of Scotland: A participatory social welfare study

Understanding and improving the experience of claiming social security for mental health problems in the west of Scotland: A participatory social welfare study

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

Experts, Expertise and Drug Policymaking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About