Recovery-Based Practice: Do We Know What We Mean or Mean What We Know?

Abstract

The concept of recovery is now widely promoted as the guiding principle for the provision of mental health services in Australia and overseas. While there is increasing pressure on service providers to ensure that services are recovery oriented, the way in which recovery-based practice is operationalized at the coalface presents a number of challenges. These are discussed in the context of five key questions that address (i) the appropriateness of recovery as a focus for service delivery, (ii) the distinction between recovery as a process and an outcome, (iii) the assessment of recovery initiatives, (iv) the alignment of recovery with current service delivery models, and (v) the risks associated with recovery-based practice. It is argued that these questions provide a framework for a debate that must extend beyond patients and providers of mental health services to the broader public, whose attitudes will ultimately determine the possibilities and limits of recovery-oriented practice.

Applying a Mental Health Recovery Approach for People from Diverse Backgrounds: The Case of Collectivism and Individualism Paradigms

“…There are benefits to all parties concerned such as reduction in burden of care-giving, enhanced level of wellness within a family when service user is able to realize their life potentials [38,39]. Mental health professionals may bring up the following topics or scenarios for discussion [40]: oasis of resources and strengths within the service users and the wider family, recovery goals and aspirations, use of medication, conflict resolution when the service user and family have different viewpoints about recovery, and finally stigma and discrimination. When dealing with these difficult topics, one strategy is to find out which person in the family or tribe influences the opinion of the group.…”

The long sleep-over: the lived experience of teenagers, parents and staff in an adolescent psychiatric unit

“…Despite typical staff tensions in such a 'pressure cooker' workplace, they could still recall their appreciation of each other and could name the benefits the adolescents received from the team. (Andresen et al, 2011;Davidson et al, 2005;Meehan et al, 2008;Noordsy et al, 2002) This study concurs with such research on recovery, that suggests multiple and sometimes contradictory meanings within the one event are common. Adolescence is a period of accommodating and assimilating many contradictory experiences, and when this is coupled with mental health problems, the difficulty of processing the emotional workload increases accordingly.…”

“…Paradoxically, the concept of 'recovery' is a somewhat vague term with no consensual meaning, although it has been continually used for a number of years. Some authors argue that use of the term invites risk; discouraging individuals from seeking professional help or generating unrealistic expectations about an objective state (Meehan et al, 2008). Others seek to operationalise the concept.…”

The domestic consequences of international over-cooperation: An experimental study of microfoundations

“…Recovery has been referred to by commentators as a complex multidimensional concept Onken et al, (2007) whose meaning has already attracted debate (Happell 2010;Meehan,et al 2008;Frese and Knight 2009). Due to differing ways of understanding, this often means that there is not one shared definition but rather a multiplicity (Mountain and Shah 2008;Tilley and Cowan 2011).…”

“…Due to differing ways of understanding, this often means that there is not one shared definition but rather a multiplicity (Mountain and Shah 2008;Tilley and Cowan 2011). Meehan et al (2008) refer to the use of jargon and familiarity with an idea that may cause misunderstanding if confused with its everyday usage. The translation and meaning of recovery attracted some interest from the group, particularly for those whose first language was not English.…”