Objective Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a standardized psychosocial intervention that is designed to help people with severe mental illness manage their illness and achieve personal recovery goals. This literature review summarizes the research on consumer-level effects of IMR and articles describing its implementation. Methods In 2011, the authors conducted a literature search of Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library by using the key words “illness management and recovery,” “wellness management and recovery,” or “IMR” AND (“schizophrenia” OR “bipolar” OR “depression” OR “recovery” OR “mental health”). Publications that cited two seminal IMR articles also guided further exploration of sources. Articles that did not deal explicitly with IMR or a direct adaptation were excluded. Results Three randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), three quasi-controlled trials, and three pre-post trials have been conducted. The RCTs found that consumers receiving IMR reported significantly more improved scores on the IMR Scale (IMRS) than consumers who received treatment as usual. IMRS ratings by clinicians and ratings of psychiatric symptoms by independent observers were also more improved for the IMR consumers. Implementation studies (N=16) identified several important barriers to and facilitators of IMR, including supervision and agency support. Implementation outcomes, such as participation rates and fidelity, varied widely. Conclusions IMR shows promise for improving some consumer-level outcomes. Important issues regarding implementation require additional study. Future research is needed to compare outcomes of IMR consumers and active control groups and to provide a more detailed understanding of how other services utilized by consumers may affect outcomes of IMR.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundProper implementation of evidence-based interventions is necessary for their full impact to be realized. However, the majority of research to date has overlooked facilitators and barriers existing outside the boundaries of the implementing organization(s). Better understanding and measurement of the external implementation context would be particularly beneficial in light of complex health interventions that extend into and interact with the larger environment they are embedded within. We conducted a integrative systematic literature review to identify external context constructs likely to impact implementation of complex evidence-based interventions.MethodsThe review process was iterative due to our goal to inductively develop the identified constructs. Data collection occurred in four primary stages: (1) an initial set of key literature across disciplines was identified and used to inform (2) journal and (3) author searches that, in turn, informed the design of the final (4) database search. Additionally, (5) we conducted citation searches of relevant literature reviews identified in each stage. We carried out an inductive thematic content analysis with the goal of developing homogenous, well-defined, and mutually exclusive categories.ResultsWe identified eight external context constructs: (1) professional influences, (2) political support, (3) social climate, (4) local infrastructure, (5) policy and legal climate, (6) relational climate, (7) target population, and (8) funding and economic climate.ConclusionsThis is the first study to our knowledge to use a systematic review process to identify empirically observed external context factors documented to impact implementation. Comparison with four widely-utilized implementation frameworks supports the exhaustiveness of our review process. Future work should focus on the development of more stringent operationalization and measurement of these external constructs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3046-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.