Mary Leamy, Una Foye, Anne Hirrich, Dagfin Bjørgen, Josh Silver, Alan Simpson, Madeline Ellis, Karl Johan-Johanson
{"title":"A systematic review of measures of the personal recovery orientation of mental health services and staff.","authors":"Mary Leamy, Una Foye, Anne Hirrich, Dagfin Bjørgen, Josh Silver, Alan Simpson, Madeline Ellis, Karl Johan-Johanson","doi":"10.1186/s13033-023-00600-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This review aimed to update and extend the Williams and colleagues 2012 systematic review of measures of recovery-orientation of mental health services by examining whether any of the specific knowledge gaps identified in this original review had subsequently been addressed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review using CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, PsycINFO, Medline and other sources, searched from 2012 until 2021. The conceptualisation of recovery and recovery-orientation of services was explored. Psychometric properties of measures were evaluated using quality criteria and according to ease of use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen measures assessing aspects of the recovery orientation of services and staff were identified, of which ten met the eligibility. Psychometric properties were evaluated, and conceptualisations of recovery and recovery-orientation of services investigated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After over a decade of research in the field of recovery outcome measurement, there remains a lack of a single gold-standard measure of recovery-orientation of mental health services. There is a need for researchers to develop a new gold standard measure of recovery-orientation of services that is psychometrically valid and reliable, demonstrates sensitivity to change and is easy to use. It needs to show a good fit to an underpinning conceptual model/ framework of both personal recovery and recovery-oriented services and/or systems, with different versions for stakeholders at each level of an organisation or system.</p>","PeriodicalId":47752,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","volume":"17 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10580616/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Mental Health Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-023-00600-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: This review aimed to update and extend the Williams and colleagues 2012 systematic review of measures of recovery-orientation of mental health services by examining whether any of the specific knowledge gaps identified in this original review had subsequently been addressed.
Methods: A systematic review using CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, PsycINFO, Medline and other sources, searched from 2012 until 2021. The conceptualisation of recovery and recovery-orientation of services was explored. Psychometric properties of measures were evaluated using quality criteria and according to ease of use.
Results: Fourteen measures assessing aspects of the recovery orientation of services and staff were identified, of which ten met the eligibility. Psychometric properties were evaluated, and conceptualisations of recovery and recovery-orientation of services investigated.
Conclusion: After over a decade of research in the field of recovery outcome measurement, there remains a lack of a single gold-standard measure of recovery-orientation of mental health services. There is a need for researchers to develop a new gold standard measure of recovery-orientation of services that is psychometrically valid and reliable, demonstrates sensitivity to change and is easy to use. It needs to show a good fit to an underpinning conceptual model/ framework of both personal recovery and recovery-oriented services and/or systems, with different versions for stakeholders at each level of an organisation or system.