The process of recovery of people with mental illness: The perspectives of patients, family members and care providers: Part 1

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is a qualitative design study that examines points of divergence and convergence in the perspectives on recovery of 36 participants or 12 triads. Each triad comprising a patient, a family member/friend, a care provider and documents the procedural, analytic of triangulating perspectives as a means of understanding the recovery process which is illustrated by four case studies. Variations are considered as they relate to individual characteristics, type of participant (patient, family, member/friend and care provider), and mental illness. This paper which is part of a larger study and is based on a qualitative research design documents the process of recovery of people with mental illness: Developing a Model of Recovery in Mental Health: A middle range theory.</p> <p><b>Methods</b></p> <p>Data were collected in field notes through semi-structured interviews based on three interview guides (one for patients, one for family members/friends, and one for caregivers). Cross analysis and triangulation methods were used to analyse the areas of convergence and divergence on the recovery process of all triads.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In general, with the 36 participants united in 12 triads, two themes emerge from the cross-analysis process or triangulation of data sources (12 triads analysis in 12 cases studies). Two themes emerge from the analysis process of the content of 36 interviews with participants: (1) <it>Revealing dynamic context</it>, situating patients in their dynamic context; and (2) <it>Relationship issues in a recovery process</it>, furthering our understanding of such issues. We provide four case studies examples (among 12 cases studies) to illustrate the variations in the way recovery is perceived, interpreted and expressed in relation to the different contexts of interaction.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The perspectives of the three participants (patients, family members/friends and care providers) suggest that recovery depends on constructing meaning around mental illness experiences and that the process is based on each person's dynamic context (e.g., social network, relationship), life experiences and other social determinants (e.g., symptoms, environment). The findings of this study add to existing knowledge about the determinants of the recovery of persons suffering with a mental illness and significant other utilizing public mental health services in Montreal, Canada.</p

Assessing the value of existing recovery measures for routine use in Australian mental health services

Object: The concept of recovery has been recognized as important in the treatment of mental illness. A number of specific instruments exist which are designed to: (i) measure recovery at an individual level; and (ii) assess the recovery orientation of services. The current review aimed to identify these and evaluate their potential for routine use in Australian public sector mental health services. Method: We identified potential instruments by drawing on existing reviews, searching MEDLINE and PsycINFO, and consulting with experts. We used a hierarchical criterion-based approach to assess whether given instruments might be candidates for measuring recovery in the Australian context. Results: We identified 33 instruments: 22 designed to measure individuals' recovery and 11 designed to assess the recovery orientation of services (or providers). Four of the former (Recovery Assessment Scale; Illness Management and Recovery Scales; Stages of Recovery Instrument; Recovery Process Inventory) and four of the latter (Recovery Oriented Systems Indicators Measure; Recovery Self Assessment; Recovery Oriented Practices Index; Recovery Promotion Fidelity Scale) were identified as promising candidates for routine use in Australian public sector mental health services. Conclusions: Further work is required, however, to determine which, if any, might best be used for this purpose; the possibility that modifications to existing instruments or the development of new instruments might be required should not be ruled out. It might be desirable to invest in two instruments: one designed to measure individuals' recovery and one designed to measure the recovery orientation of services. If Australia were to go down this path, it would make sense to align indicators in each as far as possible, and to ensure that they were consistent with existing endeavours aimed at monitoring and improving recovery-focused aspects of service quality