Empirical evidence about recovery and mental health
Open Access
- 14 November 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in BMC Psychiatry
- Vol. 15 (1) , 1-14
Abstract
Two discourses exist in mental health research and practice. The first focuses on the limitations associated with disability arising from mental disorder. The second focuses on the possibilities for living well with mental health problems. This article was prompted by a review to inform disability policy. We identify seven findings from this review: recovery is best judged by experts or using standardised assessment; few people with mental health problems recover; if a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are in remission; diagnosis is a robust basis for characterising groups and predicting need; treatment and other supports are important factors for improving outcome; the barriers to receiving effective treatment are availability, financing and client awareness; and the impact of mental illness, in particular schizophrenia, is entirely negative. We selectively review a wider range of evidence which challenge these findings, including the changing understanding of recovery, national mental health policies, systematic review methodology and undertainty, epidemiological evidence about recovery rates, reasoning biased due to assumptions about mental illness being an illness like any other, the contested nature of schizophrenia, the social construction of diagnoses, alternative explanations for psychosis experiences including the role of trauma, diagnostic over-shadowing, stigma, the technological paradigm, the treatment gap, social determinants of mental ill-health, the prevalence of voice-hearing in the general population, and the sometimes positive impact of psychosis experience in relation to perspective and purpose. We propose an alternative seven messages which are both empirically defensible and more helpful to mental health stakeholders: Recovery is best judged by the person living with the experience; Many people with mental health problems recover; If a person no longer meets criteria for a mental illness, they are not ill; Diagnosis is not a robust foundation; Treatment is one route among many to recovery; Some people choose not to use mental health services; and the impact of mental health problems is mixed.Keywords
This publication has 88 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluation for Civil Commitment, by Debra A Pinals and Douglas MossmanPsychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2012
- Childhood Adversities Increase the Risk of Psychosis: A Meta-analysis of Patient-Control, Prospective- and Cross-sectional Cohort StudiesSchizophrenia Bulletin, 2012
- Recovery in Hong Kong: Service user participation in mental health servicesInternational Review of Psychiatry, 2012
- Testing the continuum of delusional beliefs: An experimental study using virtual reality.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2010
- Mental illness and well-being: the central importance of positive psychology and recovery approachesBMC Health Services Research, 2010
- Social Relationships as a Decisive Factor in Recovering From Severe Mental IllnessInternational Journal of Social Psychiatry, 2009
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychosis continuum: evidence for a psychosis proneness–persistence–impairment model of psychotic disorderPsychological Medicine, 2008
- Remission and Recovery in Schizophrenia: Practitioner and Patient PerspectivesSchizophrenia Bulletin, 2007
- Schizophrenia can and should be renamedBMJ, 2007
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003