Perceptions of wellness recovery action plan (WRAP) training: a systematic review and metasynthesis

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to address two questions: what is the qualitative evidence for the effects of the Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) training, as perceived by adults with mental health difficulties using it? What is the quality of qualitative literature evaluating WRAP? Design/methodology/approach Five electronic reference databases and the EThOS database for unpublished research were systematically searched, as well as two pertinent journals. Study quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria and results analysed using thematic synthesis. Findings Of 73 studies, 12 qualitative papers met inclusion criteria and were generally good quality. Analyses demonstrated expected findings, such as increased understanding and active management of mental health in the context of group processes. Results also highlighted that WRAP training promoted acceptance and improved communication with professionals. Peer delivery of WRAP was highly valued, with contrasting perceptions of peers and professionals evident. Some cultural considerations were raised by participants from ethnic minorities. Research limitations/implications WRAP training participation has positive self-perceived effects beyond those captured by measures of recovery. Broader implications are suggested regarding earlier access to WRAP, professional support and communication between professionals and service users. Recommendations for further research include the relationship between social support and illness self-management and peer-delivered acceptance-based approaches. Multiple time-point qualitative studies could offer insights into WRAP training processes and whether changes are sustained. Originality/value As the first review of qualitative evidence regarding WRAP training, value is offered both through increased understanding of outcomes and also guidance for future research.

Identifying and understanding the contextual factors that shaped mid-implementation outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic in organizations implementing mental health recovery innovations into services

“…The introduction of this paper described the process of working with implementation teams to select an innovation and plan for its implementation. Innovations selected included staff training programs in mental health recovery [ 17 ] (Manitoba 2, Ontario, New Brunswick 2), hiring peer workers [ 53 ] (Manitoba 1, Québec), Wellness Recovery Action Planning (WRAP) training for people with lived experience and staff to become WRAP facilitators [ 54 ] (British Columbia), and a family support group program [ 55 ] (New Brunswick 1). How these sites were selected is described in detail elsewhere [Piat et al: Translating mental health recovery guidelines into recovery-oriented innovations: A strategy combining implementation teams and a facilitated planning process, under review].…”

Identifying and Exploring Sustainability Determinants of Mental Health Recovery-Oriented Interventions: A Mixed Methods Study Protocol

“…The research team continued to support the implementation teams for another 12 months to operationalize their Action Plans and implement their recovery-oriented interventions. In all, 4 recovery-oriented interventions across the seven sites were implemented: 1) recovery training for staff (train-the-trainer model); 2) peer support (Stratford et al, 2019 ); 3) Wellness Recovery Action Planning (WRAP) (Canacott et al, 2020 ); and 4) family support groups (Canadian Mental Health Association of New Brunswick, 2021 ). In December 2020, during post-implementation data collection, two out of the seven organizations reported sustaining their interventions.…”

“…Over the past two decades, there has been a growing research literature on the conceptualization, effectiveness, and operationalization of mental health recovery into services (Canacott et al, 2020 ; Le Boutillier et al, 2011 , 2015 ; Leamy et al, 2011 ; Piat et al, 2021 ; Sreeram et al, 2021 ; van Weeghel et al, 2019 ). Studies on the different facets of mental health recovery were conducted initially in high-income Western countries and then expanded to other regions (e.g., Asia, Africa, Middle-East) (Sofouli, 2020 ).…”

The Evidence Base for Wellness Recovery Action Planning (WRAP): A Protocol for a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

“…From a search of the available literature, only two systematic reviews appeared, one was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials into the effectiveness of the program on a service user's clinical recovery outcomes [19]. The other was a systematic review of qualitative data collected by included studies which examined the effects of WRAP on service users, while also examining the quality of qualitative literature available [20]. Although scholars are beginning to synthesis evidence into this initiative, no such review has been carried out thus far on all literature typologies into WRAP.…”