Title |
Staff understanding of recovery-orientated mental health practice: a systematic review and narrative synthesis
|
---|---|
Published in |
Implementation Science, June 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13012-015-0275-4 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Clair Le Boutillier, Agnes Chevalier, Vanessa Lawrence, Mary Leamy, Victoria J Bird, Rob Macpherson, Julie Williams, Mike Slade |
Abstract |
Mental health policy is for staff to transform their practice towards a recovery orientation. Staff understanding of recovery-orientated practice will influence the implementation of this policy. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and narrative synthesis of empirical studies identifying clinician and manager conceptualisations of recovery-orientated practice. A systematic review of empirical primary research was conducted. Data sources were online databases (n = 8), journal table of contents (n = 5), internet, expert consultation (n = 13), reference lists of included studies and references to included studies. Narrative synthesis was used to integrate the findings. A total of 10,125 studies were screened, 245 full papers were retrieved, and 22 were included (participants, n = 1163). The following three conceptualisations of recovery-orientated practice were identified: clinical recovery, personal recovery and service-defined recovery. Service-defined recovery is a new conceptualisation which translates recovery into practice according to the goals and financial needs of the organisation. Organisational priorities influence staff understanding of recovery support. This influence is leading to the emergence of an additional meaning of recovery. The impact of service-led approaches to operationalising recovery-orientated practice has not been evaluated. The protocol for the review was pre-registered (PROSPERO 2013: CRD42013005942 ). |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 5 | 23% |
Canada | 3 | 14% |
United States | 2 | 9% |
Australia | 1 | 5% |
Unknown | 11 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 11 | 50% |
Scientists | 7 | 32% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 9% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 6 | 3% |
Australia | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 186 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 33 | 17% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 17% |
Researcher | 24 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 5% |
Other | 38 | 20% |
Unknown | 45 | 23% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 41 | 21% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 18% |
Social Sciences | 29 | 15% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 10% |
Arts and Humanities | 5 | 3% |
Other | 13 | 7% |
Unknown | 51 | 26% |