77
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Empirical evidence about recovery and mental health

      research-article
      ,
      BMC Psychiatry
      BioMed Central
      Mental health, Recovery, Science, Evidence, Prognosis, Outcome

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          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.

          Discussion

          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.

          Conclusion

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references166

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

              David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mike.slade@kcl.ac.uk
                Eleanor.Longden@liverpool.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                14 November 2015
                14 November 2015
                2015
                : 15
                : 285
                Affiliations
                [ ]King’s College London, Health Service and Population Research Department (Box P029), Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF UK
                [ ]Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, University of Liverpool, Block B, 2nd Floor, Waterhouse Building, Liverpool, L69 3GL UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7020-3434
                Article
                678
                10.1186/s12888-015-0678-4
                4647297
                26573691
                a57f61da-5991-44cc-a844-2d054d7f26a8
                © Slade and Longden. 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 21 July 2015
                : 8 November 2015
                Categories
                Debate
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                mental health,recovery,science,evidence,prognosis,outcome
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                mental health, recovery, science, evidence, prognosis, outcome

                Comments

                Comment on this article