Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBird, V
dc.contributor.authorLeamy, M
dc.contributor.authorTew, J
dc.contributor.authorLe Boutillier, C
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, J
dc.contributor.authorSlade, M
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-26T16:24:08Z
dc.date.available2019-02-26T16:24:08Z
dc.date.issued2014-01-10
dc.identifier.citationBird, V. et al. (2014) ‘Fit for purpose? Validation of a conceptual framework for personal recovery with current mental health consumers’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48(7), pp. 644–653. doi: 10.1177/0004867413520046.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0004-8674
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/55561
dc.description.abstractObjective: Mental health services in the UK, Australia and other Anglophone countries have moved towards supporting personal recovery as a primary orientation. To provide an empirically grounded foundation to identify and evaluate recovery-oriented interventions, we previously published a conceptual framework of personal recovery based on a systematic review and narrative synthesis of existing models. Our objective was to test the validity and relevance of this framework for people currently using mental health services. Method: Seven focus groups were conducted with 48 current mental health consumers in three NHS trusts across England, as part of the REFOCUS Trial. Consumers were asked about the meaning and their experience of personal recovery. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis applying a constant comparison approach was used to analyse the data. The analysis aimed to explore the validity of the categories within the conceptual framework, and to highlight any areas of difference between the conceptual framework and the themes generated from new data collected from the focus groups. Results: Both the inductive and deductive analysis broadly validated the conceptual framework, with the super-ordinate categories Connectedness, Hope and optimism, Identity, Meaning and purpose, and Empowerment (CHIME) evident in the analysis. Three areas of difference were, however, apparent in the inductive analysis. These included practical support; a greater emphasis on issues around diagnosis and medication; and scepticism surrounding recovery. Conclusions: This study suggests that the conceptual framework of personal recovery provides a defensible theoretical base for clinical and research purposes which is valid for use with current consumers. However, the three areas of difference further stress the individual nature of recovery and the need for an understanding of the population and context under investigation.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipThis article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0707-10040), and in relation to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College Londonen_US
dc.format.extent644 - 653
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSage Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.ispartofAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
dc.subjectIdentityen_US
dc.subjectMental health servicesen_US
dc.subjectRecoveryen_US
dc.subjectSelf managementen_US
dc.subjectService researchen_US
dc.titleFit for purpose? Validation of a conceptual framework for personal recovery with current mental health consumersen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.holderThe Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0004867413520046
pubs.issue7en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.volume48en_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
qmul.funderDeveloping a recovery focus in mental health services in England::National Institute of Health Researchen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record