information for practice

news, new scholarship & more from around the world


advanced search

Measures of the recovery orientation of mental health services: systematic review

Abstract

Purpose  

The review aimed to (1) identify measures that assess the recovery orientation of services; (2) discuss how these measures
have conceptualised recovery, and (3) characterise their psychometric properties.

Methods  

A systematic review was undertaken using seven sources. The conceptualisation of recovery within each measure was investigated
by rating items against a conceptual framework of recovery comprising five recovery processes: connectedness; hope and optimism;
identity; meaning and purpose; and empowerment. Psychometric properties of measures were evaluated using quality criteria.

Results  

Thirteen recovery orientation measures were identified, of which six met eligibility criteria. No measure was a good fit with
the conceptual framework. No measure had undergone extensive psychometric testing and none had data on test–retest reliability
or sensitivity to change.

Conclusions  

Many measures have been developed to assess the recovery orientation of services. Comparisons between the measures were hampered
by the different conceptualisations of recovery used and by the lack of uniformity on the level of organisation at which services
were assessed. This situation makes it a challenge for services and researchers to make an informed choice on which measure
to use. Further work is needed to produce measures with a transparent conceptual underpinning and demonstrated psychometric
properties.

  • Content Type Journal Article
  • Category Original Paper
  • Pages 1-9
  • DOI 10.1007/s00127-012-0484-y
  • Authors
    • J. Williams, Section for Recovery, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London, Box PO29, SE5 8AF UK
    • M. Leamy, Section for Recovery, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London, Box PO29, SE5 8AF UK
    • V. Bird, Section for Recovery, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London, Box PO29, SE5 8AF UK
    • C. Harding, Division of Mental Health Services & Policy Research, Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, USA
    • J. Larsen, Rethink, London, UK
    • C. Le Boutillier, Section for Recovery, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London, Box PO29, SE5 8AF UK
    • L. Oades, Australian Institute of Business Wellbeing, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
    • M. Slade, Section for Recovery, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, De Crespigny Park, London, Box PO29, SE5 8AF UK