Recovery model

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The recovery model, recovery approach or psychological recovery is an approach to

meaning.[1]
Recovery sees symptoms as a continuum of the norm rather than an aberration and rejects sane-insane dichotomy.

William Anthony,[2] Director of the Boston Centre for Psychiatric Rehabilitation developed a cornerstone definition of mental health recovery in 1993. "Recovery is a deeply personal, unique process of changing one's attitudes, values, feelings, goals, skills and/or roles. It is a way of living a satisfying, hopeful, and contributing life even with limitations caused by the illness. Recovery involves the development of new meaning and purpose in one's life as one grows beyond the catastrophic effects of mental illness."[3][4]

The use of the concept in

social inclusion, and to studies demonstrating that many people do recover. A recovery approach has now been explicitly adopted as the guiding principle of the mental health or substance dependency policies of a number of countries and states. In many cases practical steps are being taken to base services on a recovery model, although a range of obstacles, concerns and criticisms have been raised both by service providers and by recipients of services. A number of standardized measures have been developed to assess aspects of recovery, although there is some variation between professionalized models and those originating in the psychiatric survivors movement
.

According to a study, a combined social and physical environment intervention has the potential to improve the need for recovery. However, the study's general healthy and well-functioning population made it challenging to have a significant impact. The researchers recommended implementing the intervention among a population with higher baseline values on need for recovery and providing physical activity opportunities, such as organizing lunch walking or yoga classes at work. Additionally, integrating a social media platform strategically with incentives for regular use, linking to other platforms such as Facebook, and implementing more drastic physical interventions, such as restructuring an entire department floor, may be necessary for improving the intervention's effectiveness. The study concluded that the relatively simple environment modifications used, such as placing signs to promote stair use, did not result in changes in need for recovery.[5]

History

In

drug addiction, for example within twelve-step programs or the California Sober method
.

Mental health recovery emerged in Geel, Belgium in the 13th century. Saint Dymphna—the patron saint of mental illness—was martyred there by her father in the 7th century. The Church of Saint Dymphna (built in 1349) became a pilgrimage destination for those seeking help with their psychiatric conditions. By the late 1400s, so many pilgrims were coming to Geel that the townspeople began hosting them as guests in their homes. This tradition of community recovery continues to this day. [6][7][8]

More widespread application of recovery models to psychiatric disorders is comparatively recent. The concept of recovery can be traced back as far as 1840, when John Thomas Perceval, son of Prime Minister Spencer Perceval, wrote of his personal recovery from the psychosis that he experienced from 1830 until 1832, a recovery that he obtained despite the "treatment" he received from the "lunatic" doctors who attended him.[9] But by consensus the main impetus for the development came from within the consumer/survivor/ex-patient movement, a grassroots self-help and advocacy initiative, particularly within the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s.[10] The professional literature, starting with the psychiatric rehabilitation movement in particular, began to incorporate the concept from the early 1990s in the United States, followed by New Zealand and more recently across nearly all countries within the "First World".[11] Similar approaches developed around the same time, without necessarily using the term recovery, in Italy, the Netherlands and the UK.

Developments were fueled by a number of long-term outcome studies of people with "major mental illnesses" in populations from virtually every continent, including landmark cross-national studies by the World Health Organization from the 1970s and 1990s, showing unexpectedly high rates of complete or partial recovery, with exact statistics varying by region and the criteria used. The cumulative impact of personal stories or testimony of recovery has also been a powerful force behind the development of recovery approaches and policies. A key issue became how service consumers could maintain the ownership and authenticity of recovery concepts while also supporting them in professional policy and practice.[12]

Increasingly, recovery became both a subject of mental health services research and a term emblematic of many of the goals of the

Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient Movement. The concept of recovery was often defined and applied differently by consumers/survivors and professionals. Specific policy and clinical strategies were developed to implement recovery principles although key questions remained.[10][13]

Elements of recovery

It has been emphasized that each individual's journey to recovery is a deeply personal process, as well as being related to an individual's community and society.[14] A number of features or signs of recovery have been proposed as often core elements[15] and comprehensively they have been categorized under the concept of CHIME.[16] CHIME is a mnemonic of connectedness, hope & optimism, identity, meaning & purpose and empowerment.[17]

Connectedness and supportive relationships

A common aspect of recovery is said to be the presence of others who believe in the person's potential to recover[18][19] and who stand by them. According to Relational Cultural Theory as developed by Jean Baker Miller, recovery requires mutuality and empathy in relationships.[18] The theory states this requires relationships that embody respect, authenticity, and emotional availability.[18][20] Supportive relationships can also be made safer through predictability and avoiding shaming and violence.[20][18][21] While mental health professionals can offer a particular limited kind of relationship and help foster hope, relationships with friends, family and the community are said to often be of wider and longer-term importance.[22] Case managers can play the role of connecting recovering persons to services that the recovering person may have limited access to, such as food stamps and medical care.[23][24] Others who have experienced similar difficulties and are on a journey of recovery can also play a role in establishing community and combating a recovering person's feelings of isolation.[18] An example of a recovery approach that fosters a sense of community to combat feelings of isolation is the safe house or transitional housing model of rehabilitation. This approach supports victims of trauma through a community-centered, transitional housing method that provides social services, healthcare, and psychological support to navigate through and past experiences. Safe houses aim to support survivors on account of their individual needs and can effectively rehabilitate those recovering from issues such as sexual violence and drug addiction without criminalization.[25] Additionally, safe houses provide a comfortable space where survivors can be listened to and uplifted through compassion.[26] In practice, this can be accomplished through one on one interviews with other recovering persons,[18] engaging in communal story circles,[18] or peer-led support groups.[27] Those who share the same values and outlooks more generally (not just in the area of mental health) may also be particularly important. It is said that one-way relationships based on being helped can actually be devaluing and potentially re-traumatizing,[21] and that reciprocal relationships and mutual support networks can be of more value to self-esteem and recovery.[14][18][20][19]

Hope

Finding and nurturing hope has been described as a key to recovery. It is said to include not just optimism but a sustainable belief in oneself and a willingness to persevere through uncertainty and setbacks. Hope may start at a certain turning point, or emerge gradually as a small and fragile feeling, and may fluctuate with despair. It is said to involve trusting, and risking disappointment, failure and further hurt.[14]

Identity

Recovery of a durable sense of self (if it had been lost or taken away) has been proposed as an important element. A research review suggested that people sometimes achieve this by "positive withdrawal"—regulating social involvement and negotiating public space in order to only move towards others in a way that feels safe yet meaningful; and nurturing personal psychological space that allows room for developing understanding and a broad sense of self, interests, spirituality, etc. It was suggested that the process is usually greatly facilitated by experiences of interpersonal acceptance, mutuality, and a sense of social belonging; and is often challenging in the face of the typical barrage of overt and covert negative messages that come from the broader social context.[28] Being able to move on can mean having to cope with feelings of loss, which may include despair and anger. When an individual is ready for change, a process of grieving is initiated. It may require accepting past suffering and lost opportunities or lost time.[14]

Formation of healthy coping strategies and meaningful internal schema

The development of personal

postmodern perspective, this can be seen as developing a narrative.[29]

Empowerment and building a secure base

Building a positive culture of healing is essential in the recovery approach. Since recovering is a long process, a strong supportive network can be helpful.

self care practices. Achieving social inclusion and overcoming challenging social stigma and prejudice about mental distress/disorder/difference is also an important part of empowerment. Advocates of Women's Empowerment Theory argue it is important to recognize that a recovering person's view of self is perpetuated by stereotypes and combating those narratives.[18] Empowerment according to this logic requires reframing a survivor's view of self and the world.[18][19] In practice, empowerment and building a secure base require mutually supportive relationships between survivors and service providers, identifying a survivor's existing strengths, and an awareness of the survivor's trauma and cultural context.[21][18][19][27]

Concepts of recovery

Varied definitions

What constitutes 'recovery', or a recovery model, is a matter of ongoing debate both in theory and in practice. In general, professionalized clinical models tend to focus on improvement in particular symptoms and functions, and on the role of treatments, while consumer/survivor models tend to put more emphasis on peer support, empowerment and real-world personal experience.[33][34][35] "Recovery from", the medical approach, is defined by a dwindling of symptoms, whereas "recovery in", the peer approach, may still involve symptoms, but the person feels they are gaining more control over their life.[36] Similarly, recovery may be viewed in terms of a social model of disability rather than a medical model of disability, and there may be differences in the acceptance of diagnostic "labels" and treatments.[14]

A review of research suggested that writers on recovery are rarely explicit about which of the various concepts they are employing. The reviewers classified the approaches they found in to broadly "rehabilitation" perspectives, which they defined as being focused on life and meaning within the context of enduring disability, and "clinical" perspectives which focused on observable remission of symptoms and restoration of functioning.

linear but does tend to take place as a series of small steps; does not mean the person was never really psychiatrically disabled; focuses on wellness not illness, and on consumer choice.[38]

A consensus statement on mental health recovery from US agencies, that involved some consumer input, defined recovery as a journey of healing and transformation enabling a person with a mental health problem to live a meaningful life in a community of his or her choice while striving to achieve his or her full potential. Ten fundamental components were elucidated, all assuming that the person continues to be a "consumer" or to have a "mental disability".[39] Conferences have been held on the importance of the "elusive" concept from the perspectives of consumers and psychiatrists.[40]

One approach to recovery known as the

mental health nurses
along with service users, Tidal is a particular model that has been specifically researched. Based on a discrete set of values (the Ten Commitments), it emphasizes the importance of each person's own voice, resourcefulness and wisdom. Since 1999, projects based on the Tidal Model have been established in several countries.

For many, recovery has a political as well as personal implication—where to recover is to: find meaning; challenge prejudice (including diagnostic "labels" in some cases); perhaps to be a "bad" non-compliant patient and refuse to accept the indoctrination of the system; to reclaim a chosen life and place within society; and to validate the self.[41] Recovery can thus be viewed as one manifestation of empowerment. Such an empowerment model may emphasize that conditions are not necessarily permanent; that other people have recovered who can be role models and share experiences; and that "symptoms" can be understood as expressions of distress related to emotions and other people. One such model from the US National Empowerment Center proposes a number of principles of how people recover and seeks to identify the characteristics of people in recovery.[42]

In general, recovery may be seen as more of a philosophy or attitude than a specific model, requiring fundamentally that "we regain personal power and a valued place in our communities. Sometimes we need services to support us to get there".[43]

Recovery from substance dependence

Particular kinds of recovery models have been adopted in

holistic way rather than through law enforcement and criminal justice-based intervention which can fail to address victims’ circumstances on a need-by-need basis.[25] From the perspective of services the work may include helping people with "developing the skills to prevent relapse into further illegal drug taking, rebuilding broken relationships or forging new ones, actively engaging in meaningful activities and taking steps to build a home and provide for themselves and their families. Milestones could be as simple as gaining weight, re-establishing relationships with friends, or building self-esteem. What is key is that recovery is sustained.".[45] Key to the philosophy of the recovery movement is the aim for an equal relationship between "Experts by Profession" and "Experts by Experience".[46]

Trauma-Informed Recovery

Trauma-Informed care is a philosophy for recovery that combines the conditions and needs of people recovering from mental illness and/or substance abuse into one framework. This framework combines all of the elements of the Recovery Approach and adds an awareness of trauma. Advocates of trauma-informed care argue the principles and strategies should be applied to individuals experiencing mental illness, substance dependence, and trauma as these three often occur simultaneously or as result of each other.[47][19][23][21][27] The paradigms surrounding trauma-informed care began to shift in 1998 and 1999. In 1998, the Center for Mental Health Services, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, and the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention collaborated to fund 14 sites to develop integrated services in order to address the interrelated effects of violence, mental health, and substance abuse.[47] In 1999, the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors passed a resolution recognizing the impact of violence and trauma[47] and developed a toolkit of resources for the implementation of trauma services in state mental health agencies.[19] Trauma-informed care has been supported in academia as well. Scholars claim that neglecting the role of trauma in a person's story can interfere with recovery in the form of misdiagnosis, inaccurate treatment, or retraumatization.[23][21][18][27][47][20] Some principles of trauma-informed care include validating survivor experiences and resiliency, aiming to increase a survivor's control over her/his/their recovery, creating atmospheres for recovery that embody consistency and confidentiality, minimizing the possibilities of triggering past trauma, and integrating survivors/recovering persons in service evaluation.[27][19][18][21] In practice, trauma-informed care has shown to be most effective when every participant in a service providing context to be committed to following these principles.[23][21] In addition, these principles can apply to all steps of the recovery process within a service providing context, including outreach and engagement, screening, advocacy, crisis intervention, and resource coordination.[19][27][18][20][21] The overall goal in trauma-informed care is facilitating healing and empowerment using strengths-based empowerment practices and a comprehensive array of services that integrate co-occurring disorders and the multitude of needs a recovering person might have, such as drug treatment, housing, relationship building, and parenting support.[23][21][27]

These approaches are in contrast to traditional care systems. Advocates of trauma-informed care critique traditional service delivery systems, such as standard hospitals, for failing to understand the role of trauma in a patient's life.[47] Traditional service delivery systems are also critiqued for isolating the conditions of a recovering person and not addressing conditions such as substance abuse and mental illness simultaneously as part of one source.[23][47] Specific practices in traditional service delivery systems, such as unnecessary procedures, undressing for examinations, involuntary hospitalizations, crowded emergency rooms, and limited time for providers to meet with patients, have all been critiqued as insensitive to persons recovering from trauma and consequential mental illness or substance abuse.[21][20][47] Limited resources and time in the United States healthcare system can make the implementation of trauma-informed care difficult.[20]

There are other challenges to trauma-informed care besides limits in the United States healthcare system that can make trauma-informed care ineffective for treating persons recovering from mental illness or substance dependence. Advocates of trauma-informed care argue implementation requires a strong commitment from leadership in an agency to train staff members to be trauma-aware, but this training can be costly and time-consuming.[47][27][19] "Trauma-informed care" and "trauma" also have contested definitions and can be hard to measure in a real world service setting.[19] Another barrier to trauma-informed care is the necessity of screening for histories of trauma.[19][21][20][47][27] While agencies need to screen for histories of trauma in order to give the best care, there can be feelings of shame and fear of being invalidated that can prevent a recovering person from disclosing their personal experiences.[20]

Concerns

Some concerns have been raised about a recovery approach in theory and in practice. These include suggestions that it: is an old concept; only happens to very few people; represents an irresponsible fad; happens only as a result of active treatment; implies a cure; can only be implemented with new resources; adds to the burden of already stretched providers; is neither reimbursable nor evidence based; devalues the role of professional intervention; and increases providers' exposure to risk and liability.[48]

Other criticisms focused on practical implementation by service providers include that: the recovery model can be manipulated by officials to serve various political and financial interests including withdrawing services and pushing people out before they're ready; that it is becoming a new orthodoxy or bandwagon that neglects the empowerment aspects and structural problems of societies and primarily represents a middle class experience; that it hides the continued dominance of a medical model; and that it potentially increases social exclusion and marginalizes those who don't fit into a recovery narrative.[49]

There have been specific tensions between recovery models and "evidence-based practice" models in the transformation of US mental health services based on the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health.[50] The commission's emphasis on recovery has been interpreted by some critics as saying that everyone can fully recover through sheer will power and therefore as giving false hope and implicitly blaming those who may be unable to recover.[51] However, the critics have themselves been charged with undermining consumer rights and failing to recognize that the model is intended to support a person in their personal journey rather than expecting a given outcome, and that it relates to social and political support and empowerment as well as the individual.[52]

Various stages of resistance to recovery approaches have been identified amongst staff in traditional services, starting with "Our people are much sicker than yours. They won't be able to recover" and ending in "Our doctors will never agree to this". However, ways to harness the energy of this perceived resistance and use it to move forward have been proposed.[53] In addition, staff training materials have been developed by various organisations, for example by the National Empowerment Center.[54][55][56][57]

Some positives and negatives of recovery models were highlighted in a study of a

coping in daily life. Cultural biases and uncertainties were also noted in the 'North American' model of recovery in practice, reflecting views about the sorts of contributions and lifestyles that should be considered valuable or acceptable.[58]

Assessment

A number of standardized questionnaires and assessments have been developed to try to assess aspects of an individual's recovery journey. These include the Milestones of Recovery (MOR) Scale, Recovery Enhancing Environment (REE) measure, Recovery Measurement Tool (RMT), Recovery Oriented System Indicators (ROSI) Measure,[59] Stages of Recovery Instrument (STORI),[60] and numerous related instruments.[61]

The data-collection systems and terminology used by services and funders are said to be typically incompatible with recovery frameworks, so methods of adapting them have been developed.[62] It has also been argued that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (and to some extent any system of categorical classification of mental disorders) uses definitions and terminology that are inconsistent with a recovery model, leading to suggestions that the next version, the DSM-V, requires: greater sensitivity to cultural issues and gender; to recognize the need for others to change as well as just those singled out for a diagnosis of disorder; and to adopt a dimensional approach to assessment that better captures individuality and does not erroneously imply excess psychopathology or chronicity.[63]

National policies and implementation

United States and Canada

The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has proposed to transform the mental health system in the US by shifting the paradigm of care from traditional medical psychiatric treatment toward the concept of recovery, and the American Psychiatric Association has endorsed a recovery model from a psychiatric services perspective.[64][65]

The

US Department of Health and Human Services reports developing national and state initiatives to empower consumers and support recovery, with specific committees planning to launch nationwide pro-recovery, anti-stigma education campaigns; develop and synthesize recovery policies; train consumers in carrying out evaluations of mental health systems; and help further the development of peer-run services.[66] Mental Health service directors and planners are providing guidance to help state services implement recovery approaches.[67]

Some US states, such as California (see the California Mental Health Services Act), Wisconsin and Ohio, already report redesigning their mental health systems to stress recovery model values like hope, healing, empowerment, social connectedness, human rights, and recovery-oriented services.[68]

At least some parts of the Canadian Mental Health Association, such as the Ontario region, have adopted recovery as a guiding principle for reforming and developing the mental health system.[31]

New Zealand and Australia

Since 1998, all mental health services in New Zealand have been required by government policy to use a recovery approach[69][70] and mental health professionals are expected to demonstrate competence in the recovery model.[71] Australia's National Mental Health Plan 2003-2008 states that services should adopt a recovery orientation[72] although there is variation between Australian states and territories in the level of knowledge, commitment and implementation.[73]

UK and Ireland

In 2005, the

Scottish Executive has included the promotion and support of recovery as one of its four key mental health aims and funded a Scottish Recovery Network to facilitate this.[78] A 2006 review of nursing in Scotland recommended a recovery approach as the model for mental health nursing care and intervention.[79] The Mental Health Commission of Ireland reports that its guiding documents place the service user at the core and emphasize an individual's personal journey towards recovery.[80]

See also

References

  1. PMID 27254761
    .
  2. ^ Anthony, William. "Toward a Vision of Recovery" (PDF). Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-12-30. Retrieved 2015-05-26.
  3. ^ "Recovery: Definition & Components". Hamilton County Mental Health & Recovery Services Board. Retrieved 23 April 2018.
  4. ^ "Resolution on APA Endorsement Of The Concept Of Recovery For People With Serious Mental Illness" (PDF). APA. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 22, 2012.
  5. PMID 25542039
    .
  6. . Retrieved March 19, 2023.
  7. ^ The remarkable story of Geel: 700 years of community-based mental health care
  8. ^ Stevis-Gridneff, Matina; Ryckewaert, Koba (2023), "Radical Experiment in Mental Health Care, Tested Over Centuries", New York Times, archived from the original on 2023-04-25
  9. ^ History of the Recovery Movement
  10. ^ a b Office of the Surgeon General and various United States Government agencies (1999) Mental Health: A report of the Surgeon General. Section 10: Overview of Recovery
  11. S2CID 25732602
    .
  12. (PDF) on 2007-09-26.
  13. ^ Jacobson, N. and Curtis, L. (2000) Recovery as Policy in Mental Health Services: Strategies Emerging from the States. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, Spring
  14. ^
  15. ^ "Recovery principles".
  16. ^ Hopkins, Andrew. "What helps - Scottish Recovery Network". SRN. Archived from the original on 2020-10-31. Retrieved 2017-03-30.
  17. ^ Leamy, M., Bird, V.J., Le Boutillier, C., Williams, J. & Slade, M. (2011). A conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. British Journal of Psychiatry, 199:445-452.
  18. ^
    PMID 26489348
    .
  19. ^ .
  20. ^ .
  21. ^ .
  22. ^ Hack Thyself (2012) Recovery Is Impossible Without Friends Archived 2016-10-04 at the Wayback Machine
  23. ^
    PMID 12613067
    .
  24. .
  25. ^ .
  26. .
  27. ^ .
  28. .
  29. .
  30. .
  31. ^ a b Canadian Mental Health Association, Ontario (2003) Recovery rediscovered: Implications for the Ontario mental health system[dead link]
  32. ^ .
  33. .
  34. .
  35. ^ Carlos Pratt, Kenneth J. Gill, Nora M. Barrett, Kevin K. Hull, Melissa M. Roberts (2002) Psychiatric Rehabilitation
  36. S2CID 4426778
    .
  37. .
  38. ^ US Dept of Health and Human Services and SAMHSA Center for Mental Health Services (2004) National Consensus Statement on Mental Health Recovery Archived 2008-09-07 at the Wayback Machine
  39. ^ "Recovery Movement Gains Influence In Mental Health Programs". Psychiatric News. 38 (1): 10. January 3, 2003. Archived from the original on August 2, 2003.
  40. ^ Chamberlin, J. Confessions of a non-compliant patient National Empowerment Center
  41. ^ Fisher, D. (2005). "Empowerment Model of Recovery From Severe Mental Illness". Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health. 10 (1).
  42. ^ Doug Banks, Jim Burdett, Vicki Burnett, Deb Christensen, Susie Crooks, Elva Edwards, Stewart Fenton, Seulata Fui, Maria Glanville, Sonja Goldsack, Alex Handiside, Chris Hansen, Anne Helm, Iwa Natana, Mary O'Hagan, Lina Samu, Ana Sokratov, Te Wera Te Kotua, John Tovey, Debra Wells and Ranui Wilson (2004) Our Lives in 2014: A recovery vision from people with experience of mental illness Archived 2008-10-16 at the Wayback Machine Published with the assistance of the New Zealand Mental Health Commission.
  43. PMID 15281690
    . Retrieved 2023-04-27.
  44. ^ The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland's Drug Problem by the Scottish Government, May 29, 2008
  45. Drew, Emma
    . The Whole Person Recovery Handbook.
  46. ^
    PMID 11291260
    .
  47. .
  48. ^ a b George, C. (2008) 'Recovery' approach in mental health is idea 'whose time has come' Archived 2020-08-03 at the Wayback Machine Psychminded.co.uk Retrieved on 29 Aug 2008
  49. .
  50. ^ Torrey (2003) Treatment Advocacy Center Statement Newswire. Retrieved on Aug 12 2008
  51. ^ McLean, A. (2003) Recovering Consumers and a Broken Mental Health System in the United States: Ongoing Challenges for Consumers/ Survivors and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Part II: Impact of Managed Care and Continuing Challenges Archived 2016-11-07 at the Wayback Machine International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 8, 58-70.
  52. ^ Lori Ashcraft, William A. Anthony (2008) Addressing Resistance to Recovery:Strategies for working with staff resistant to change Behavioral Healthcare: Tools for Transformation, March
  53. ^ Ahern L, Fisher D. Personal Assistance in Community Existence: A Recovery Guide. Lawrence, Mass: National Empowerment Center; 1999.
  54. ^ Ahern L, Fisher D. PACE/Recovery Curriculum. Lawrence, Mass: National Empowerment Center; 2001.
  55. ^ Fisher D, Chamberlin J. PACE/Recovery Peer Training Recovery Curriculum. Lawrence, Mass: National Empowerment Center; 2004.
  56. PMID 11324174
    .
  57. ^ Neely, Laurenzo & Myers (2010) Culture, Stress and Recovery from Schizophrenia: Lessons from the Field for Global Mental Health. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry. 2010 September; 34(3): 500–528.
  58. ^ Website of the National Association of State Mental Health Directors Tools In Development: Measuring Recovery at the Individual, Program, and System Levels Archived 2007-04-17 at the Wayback Machine
  59. PMID 17054565
    .
  60. ^ Theodora Campbell-Orde, M.P.A., Judi Chamberlin, Jenneth Carpenter, M.S.W., & H. Stephen Leff, Ph.D. (2005) Measuring the Promise: A Compendium of Recovery Measures, Volume II Archived 2014-01-04 at the Wayback Machine
  61. ^ Lori Ashcraft, William A. Anthony (2007) Data Collection With Recovery In Mind: Involve service users as much as possible Archived 2010-08-13 at the Wayback Machine Behavioral Healthcare: Tools for Transformation, September
  62. ^ Michael T. Compton (2007) Recovery: Patients, Families, Communities Conference Report, Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health, October 11–14, 2007
  63. ^ President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003) Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America Archived 2008-07-05 at the Wayback Machine
  64. ^ Sharfstein, S. (2005). "Recovery Model Will Strengthen Psychiatrist-Patient Relationship". Psychiatric News. 40 (20): 3. Archived from the original on 2008-03-25.
  65. ^ US Dept of Health and Human Sciences Consumer-Directed Transformation to a Recovery-Based Mental Health System Archived 2006-11-30 at the Wayback Machine
  66. ^ NASMHPD/NTAC (2004) Implementing Recovery-based Care: Tangible Guidance for SMHAs Archived 2007-09-29 at the Wayback Machine
  67. PMID 11274493
    .
  68. ^ Mary O'Hagan (2004). "Recovery in New Zealand: Lessons for Australia?" (PDF). Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health. 3 (1). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-08-31.
  69. ^ New Zealand Mental Health Commission website Archived 1998-02-14 at the Wayback Machine
  70. ^ Mental Health Commission (2002) Recovery Competencies for New Zealand Mental Health Workers Archived 2008-04-14 at the Wayback Machine
  71. ^ Australian Government National Mental Health Plan 2003-2008 Archived 2008-08-28 at the Wayback Machine
  72. S2CID 72560206. Archived from the original
    (PDF) on 2007-08-31.
  73. ^ NIMHE (2005) Guiding Statement on Recovery.[permanent dead link]
  74. ^ "Support, time, recovery (STR) workers". London Development Centre. 12 February 2007. Archived from the original on 29 April 2007.
  75. ^ Shepherd, G., Boardman, J., Slade, M. (2008) [1] Centre for Mental Health
  76. ^ "What is recovery?". Archived from the original on 2012-06-26. Retrieved 2012-05-30.
  77. ^ Hopkins, Andrew. "Contents, Acknowledgements, About this project & Chapter summaries « Scottish Recovery Network". Archived from the original on 2007-05-13. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
  78. ^ Scottish Executive (2006) Rights, Relationships and Recovery: The Report of the National Review of Mental Health Nursing in Scotland
  79. ^ Higgins, Agnes (2008). "A Recovery Approach within the Irish Mental Health Services: A Framework for Development" (PDF). Mental Health Commission. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-07-05. Retrieved 2016-02-04.

Further reading

  • Karasaki et al.,(2013). The Place of Volition in Addiction: Differing Approaches and their Implications for Policy and Service Provision.

External links