Lit Review on Recovery Oriented Systems and Supports

• Review
• Open Access
• Published: 01 December 2016

A review of mental health recovery programs in selected industrialized countries

• Brigitta Spaeth-Rublee^four,
• Grant Sara^5,vi,
• Elliot M. Goldner⁷,
• Pamela N. Prince^eight,
• Parashar Ramanuj^ix,
• Wolfgang Gaebel^10,eleven,12,
• Jürgen Zielasek^x,11,12,
• Isabell Großimlinghaus^10,xi,12,
• Margo Wrigley¹³,
• Jaap van Weeghel^14,15,
• Mark Smith¹⁶,
• Torleif Ruud^17,18,
• John R. Mitchell¹⁹ &
• Lisa Patton²⁰

International Periodical of Mental Health Systems book 10, Article number:73 (2016) Cite this article

• 7705 Accesses

• 42 Citations

• x Altmetric

• Metrics details

Abstruse

The concept of recovery has gained increasing attention and many mental wellness systems accept taken steps to motion towards more recovery oriented practice and service structures. This commodity represents a description of current recovery-oriented programs in participating countries including recovery measurement tools. Although there is growing credence that recovery needs to be one of the primal domains of quality in mental health care, the implementation and delivery of recovery oriented services and corresponding evaluation strategies as an integral function of mental health care take been lacking.

Background

The recovery move has attracted widespread interest over the last decade, and as a event, has become part of broader modify and improvement processes across mental health systems in many industrialized countries. The concept of recovery emerged from the service user movements in the 1970s, most notably in Anglo-Saxon countries, challenging traditional medical approaches to treating people with mental illness and how services for these individuals are organized and delivered. At the cadre of this motility is the shift from services based on the clinical meaning of recovery (i.due east., treatment and symptom reduction as manifested by clinical assessment tools such as the PHQ-9) to recovery as defined by the service user's view of what is needed or desirable in the care south/he is encountering to help him/her resume a meaningful life and valued roles.

One of the earliest definitions of recovery refers to "a deeply personal, unique process of changing one's attitudes, values, feelings, goals, skills and/or roles… a mode of living a satisfying, hopeful and contributing life even with the limitations caused by disease" [one]. Person orientation and person interest are some of the guiding principles of recovery oriented practice; however, mutual understanding of underlying concepts of recovery and implications of a recovery orientation of services is notwithstanding emerging. Leamy et al. [ii] adult an empirically based conceptual framework of recovery centered around connectedness, hope and optimism about the futurity, identity, meaning in life, and empowerment (CHIME). Confronting this groundwork, clinical experts of the International Initiative for Mental Wellness Leadership (IIMHL) initiated a study to examine the electric current status of recovery-oriented practices and measurement activities across x countries. The group, under the auspice of the IIMHL, initiated an international project, "Measuring Quality of Mental Health Care: An International Comparing" in 2008. This ongoing initiative aims to raise awareness among clinicians and policymakers regarding the quality of care of their respective mental health systems, and ultimately to be able to compare system functioning across countries to inform initiatives for transformation of mental health services.

Results of an international literature review in Stage I of this projection institute the recovery domain to have among the fewest measurable indicators of all domains in our sample [3]. Another report based on a survey of IIMHL clinical leaders in participating countries showed that few countries take successfully incorporated recovery measures into their national mental wellness quality measurement programs [four]. This points not only to a broader gap with regard to recovery measurement but the development and operationalization of recovery concepts and the integration of recovery in the broader loonshit in general. Building on work of Phase I and applying a modified Delphi process, Phase II of the study focused on developing consensus for a core fix of operation and outcomes measures that could potentially be collected past all participating countries [five]. Nevertheless, due to the underrepresentation of recovery measures within the overall portfolio of outcomes measures in participating countries, recovery measures were not office of the Delphi process and further consideration for inclusion into the core set of performance and outcomes measures.

Recognizing this gap, Phase III of the IIMHL study included a divide written report component to examine the current status of recovery-oriented measurement activities and tools and to develop a phased strategy for enhancing the development of recovery-oriented measures for quality improvement and accountability across countries.

Methods

We asked country lead representatives of participating countries to consult and review information on recovery-oriented activities and programs currently or soon to be implemented in their corresponding countries that might not be documented in existing literature (peer-reviewed or gray literature). In improver, state leaders were asked to identify and review peer-reviewed journal manufactures and grey literature that business organization recovery-oriented instruments and measurement tools in utilise or under consideration inside their countries to advance a recovery orientation in mental health services and systems. We deliberately applied an open up-ended approach to inclusion of data on recovery without providing a specific definition of recovery to admit non only the wide variety of existing definitions of recovery and its underlying concepts just also the dissimilar degree to which recovery principles have penetrated the commitment of mental health services within participating countries.

Results—summary of recovery programs and initiatives across participating countries

The department below provides a brief overview of major programs and initiatives in each of the participating countries.

Australia

Recovery has been an of import priority in Australia'due south national and state mental health policies, [6–8] service standards, [9] and workforce standards [10]. In 2013, the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Quango released the National Framework for recovery-oriented mental services [11] and an accompanying guide for practitioners and providers [12]. The framework describes v 'practice domains': (1) Promoting a civilization of hope and optimism, (2) Person kickoff and holistic, (3) Supporting personal recovery, (4) Organisational commitment, and (5) Action on social inclusion and social determinants. These are supported past 17 'key capabilities', including core principles, values, knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, skills and abilities.

To back up measurement efforts, the Australian government funded a review of recovery measures suitable for routine utilise in the Australian context. The review [13] identified eight potentially suitable instruments: four designed to mensurate individuals' recovery (recovery cess scale; illness management and recovery scales; stages of recovery musical instrument; recovery process inventory) and four designed to appraise the recovery orientation of services (recovery oriented systems measure out; recovery cocky cess; recovery oriented practices alphabetize; recovery promotion fidelity calibration). Yet, no unmarried measure was identified that met all clinical and policy requirements. In response, Australia'due south national data committee has since adult two recovery-informed measures for potential national implementation. A mensurate of service user feel of care (the your experience of service questionnaire) [fourteen] has been developed based on recovery principles within the National Standards for Mental Health Services, and is currently beingness implemented past several Australian states and territories. The 'Living in the Community Questionnaire' has been developed to mensurate social inclusion aspects of recovery [xv].

Canada

The Mental Wellness Commission of Canada (MHCC) is undertaking a two-phase initiative for the development and implementation of recovery guidelines building on Canadian and international models. This initiative concurs with the Commission's development of an overall mental health strategy for Canada besides as other provincial/territorial activities in this area. To motion toward a recovery-oriented mental wellness organisation, MHCC is proposing a framework that aims to align concepts of recovery (conceptual alignment) with necessary exercise shifts (practical alignment) and wider contextual system transformations (contextual alignment) [16].

Many jurisdictions in Canada are incorporating the principles of recovery into mental health services. Initiatives at the state/territorial level include the Salubrious Mind, Salubrious People initiative from 2010 to address mental health and substance use in British Columbia [17]. This ten-year plan promotes a recovery approach across the entire spectrum of patient population groups from individuals with mild and moderate to astringent and circuitous mental wellness and substance employ issues and describes aggressive milestones within the prepare timeframe to transform the mental health system. Within the province of Ontario, the regions of Waterloo and Wellington-Dufferin have developed and implemented a framework based on an innovative partnership between mental health agencies and service user organizations to use principles of recovery to organisation-wide case direction [18]. The MHCC released a series of 55 national mental wellness indicators based on existing data sources, such equally large-calibration national epidemiological surveys [19]. Four of the indicators sought to written report data related to recovery and the findings of each of these are summarized in Tabular array one with full technical data is provided in a split report [20].

England

The 'recovery approach' has influenced English language mental health policy both structurally and culturally. Recovery ideas have been the guiding vision of government policy since 2001 [21] and the recovery approach has increasingly shaped wellness strategy and then that social inclusion and service user involvement are now cadre features of all mental health policy [22].

Focus has shifted towards the implementation and assessment of recovery principles [23]. In 2009 the regime paper New Horizons [24] stated that "The effectiveness and acceptability of services will exist assessed […] against indicators agreed between individual clinicians and service users, and used to help the service user plan their next steps towards recovery […]. Recovery-based services will ensure that people […] will have opportunities to accept part in meaningful activities and to contribute to and participate in social club".

To assistance in the commitment of these objectives, the Section of Health established the Implementing Recovery through Organisational Change [25] initiative in 2010 to assist mental health providers in establishing recovery-focused services. Concomitantly, the Articulation Commissioning Panel for Mental Health issued guidance [26] to those commissioning such services on 'Values based principles' so that those with lived experience of mental illness are placed at the heart of any commissioning process and given 'an equal footing to everyone else'.

In going forward, parity in health, [27] in which individuals with mental illness are afforded the same esteem and opportunities equally those with physical illness, is seen equally a cardinal organizing principle in the drive towards more recovery-focused care and an implementation framework, the "No Health Without Mental Health Dashboard" [28] has been adult. While not a mental health recovery framework or measurement tool per se, many of the outcomes overlap with recovery-oriented measures such equally: self-reported well-existence, employment, accommodation, quality of life, patient experience, self-management, conviction in challenging stigma/bigotry and overall satisfaction.

Deutschland

The German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde; DGPPN) develops evidence-based guidelines to facilitate diagnostic and treatment decisions between mental health providers and service users for specific diagnoses. These guidelines are based on the latest scientific show and are function of the national guidelines program issued by the High german Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF). For example, the DGPPN treatment guideline on psychosocial treatments addresses the issue of recovery [29]. Recovery is defined as a procedure and consists of various components such every bit hope, social inclusion, cocky-determination, quality of life, overcoming stigmatization, and empowerment. An of import goal of recovery is remission, using time and symptom based criteria (e.k., certain fundamental symptoms should remain below a targeted threshold for six months and 2 years, respectively). Some other important aspect of recovery is the strengthening of resilience.

Moreover, the DGPPN guideline on schizophrenia is currently existence updated and transformed into a German Disease Management Guideline focusing on the coordination of intendance [30]. Prove will exist reviewed confronting the background of clinical (psychopathological) outcomes and recovery-oriented outcomes, such as quality of life and social and personal operation of persons with schizophrenia. Another goal is the supplementation of the guideline with corresponding quality indicators.

Ireland

In 2006, the Department of Health and Children recommended that Irish mental health services adopt a recovery perspective. The Health Inquiry Lath (HRB), the lead agency supporting and funding wellness research in Ireland, conducted a written report to develop a coherent theory of recovery from mental health problems from the indicate of view of those recovering. Finalized in 2010, this study informs the Irish public about the possibility of recovery and the of import role of community and is recommended for mental health professionals and educators, service users, carers, researchers, policymakers and the full general public [31].

In addition, the section of health and children is supporting a number of Recovery based initiatives through their Genio Innovation fund, such as the advancing recovery in Ireland (ARI) project [32]. This is an eighteen-month initiative, which will back up six mental health services in their efforts to implement a number of the key concepts in "A Vision for Change." ARI focuses on service level structures, systems and practices that can maximize personal recovery opportunities and outcomes for service users. Each site volition besides innovate the "Recovery Context Inventory" tool (web-based mental wellness recovery profiling and event measurement tool). Currently seven sites are being evaluated and compared with side by side mental health services which are not part of an ARI project to identify benefits of the ARI approach and guide wider implementation. Another Genio funded recovery projection, EOLAS ("knowledge"), is now part of the Health Service Executive Plan for Mental Health and available nationally. The aim is to appoint service users and their families in understanding the recovery journey post-obit a diagnosis of a severe mental affliction (SMI). It is an 8 week mental health information and learning programme co-facilitated by a peer as well as a clinical facilitator. Evaluation results showed that 84 % of participants with SMI reported improved well-being with significant bear upon on psychosocial outcomes.

The Netherlands

To date, the concept of recovery overall has non had a strong touch on on mental health practices and services directed at people with common mental disorders. All the same, recovery-oriented care is condign more than and more than implemented in the care for people with SMI.

Recently a task strength, by guild of the Dutch minister of Health, developed Crossing the bridge, a national activity program to improve treat people with SMI, [33] in which recovery, empowerment, customs integration and combating stigma are the key concepts. The overall ambition of this action plan is to help people with SMI help grab up with the rest of gild and therefore 'to meliorate their recovery (of health, participation and personal identity) past at to the lowest degree 1-third in 2015'. To achieve this, the medical and back up services should be organized in strongly coordinated local networks of mental health practitioners, service users and their families, supported housing agencies, general practitioners, vocational rehabilitation organizations, and generic social work teams on the ground of a national intendance standard and quality framework. This is to ensure that state-of-the-art treatment can exist accessed by all people in the target group, regardless of their current position in the care landscape. Besides local recovery colleges will be established that provide recovery courses, self-help services, and offering support in social inclusion bug.

Routine outcome monitoring of the primal recovery dimensions is not yet mandatory; yet, many Dutch mental wellness organizations are using the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA) instrument to measure the subjective quality of life of individuals with astringent mental illnesses on a voluntary basis. Recently, a distinct Dutch Personal Recovery Calibration was adult with the aim to accept information technology added equally a mandatory component of routine result monitoring in the netherlands. Other instruments used for voluntary cess in routine mental wellness care are the recovery oriented practices index (ROPI), the Quality Indicator for Rehabilitative Care (QuIRC), [34] and QUARTS (quality assessment of regional treatment systems for schizophrenia) [35]. Recently a group of Dutch practitioners and researchers became interested in the Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter tool (I.ROC), which has been developed by Penumbra, a third sector voluntary organization in Scotland. The Dutch translation of I.ROC will before long be piloted and validated in various mental healthcare practices in the netherlands.

New Zealand

In 1998, the New Zealand Mental Health Committee articulated in its initial Pattern [36] strategy paper the demand to move toward recovery-oriented mental wellness services. A second report Blueprint Two—Improving mental health and wellbeing for all New Zealanders, published in 2012, builds on the offset Blueprint document and is based on the concepts of people-centered and people-directed recovery and resiliency as core values of mental wellness services. Blueprint II extends the focus beyond the most severely affected individuals to those who have a lower level of need just whose mental health and habit issues yet take significant impact on their overall health and their ability to role at home or at work.

In 2012, The Ministry of Health [37] released its strategic development plan for mental health and habit services (Rising to the Challenge) which views recovery equally a guiding principle for services. Mental health services in New Zealand take been collecting and using outcome measurement tools for 8 years [38]. In the recently released New Zealand Health Strategy outcomes, measurement and indicators are stressed repeatedly [39].

Starting July i 2015, New Zealand has mandated the collection of two recovery questions for its addiction services. The questions are part of an booze and drug outcome measure (ADOM) which consists of three sections: [forty] frequency of drug and alcohol use; psychosocial touch of drug and alcohol employ; and recovery. The 2 questions have become part of the national collection in New Zealand which means that New Zealand can written report on this data at team, service and national levels. Equally a self reported effect tool the two recovery questions provide an indication of where service users see their own recovery:

1. 1.

   "Overall how close are you to where you want to be in your recovery?" (Tick the number that best fits where you are at present i, two, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ten).

2. ii.

   "How satisfied are y'all with your progress towards achieving your recovery goals?" (Not at all, slightly, moderately, considerably, extremely).

These two questions accept recently been validated in terms of their psychometric backdrop [41, 42].

There are measures in utilize among certain provider organizations or patient sub-groups which explicitly address individual recovery, for example the Recovery Star is a widely used model, particularly in non-regime organization settings. In that location is currently no widely used tool for measuring whether services are working in recovery orientated ways. Any of the above personal recovery measures would have to be assorted with measures of clinical recovery such as the HoNOS (Wellness of the Nations Outcome Calibration) which is well used in New Zealand.

Norway

Recovery and perspectives of service users are given increasingly attention in Norwegian national wellness policies and partly in mental wellness services. But this development is nevertheless in an early phase compared to virtually other countries presented in this article. There have been no specific national programs on recovery. But elements of recovery-oriented practices to assistance the service user to live a normal life were among the aims of the National Plan for Mental Health 1999–2008 [43, 44]. Nevertheless, the quantified goals in the program were focusing on up-scaling service provision, and there were no measurements on quality of the mental health services. During the terminal years there has been increased emphasis on services user preferences and perspectives in national mental health policy. Merely it notwithstanding remains to see a clear modify in practice and culture throughout the mental health services and past the professional person groups. Nonetheless, focus on recovery has been emphasized by some university colleges and user organizations. The National Competence Heart for Mental Health care in the Municipalities and the National Eye for Cognition through Experience in Mental Health are two centers that are funded past the national health government to disseminate noesis and experiences, and this includes emphasis on recovery and on service user involvement and empowerment. Recent national guidelines on mental health and substance corruption care puts great emphasis on recovery-oriented practices and perspectives [45]. A comprehensive overview of recovery practices has also been published in Norwegian [46]. There are no published Norwegian measurements of recovery, but some questionnaires on recovery have been translated into Norwegian and are used in inquiry projects, including the process of recovery questionnaire (QPR) [47] and the recovery cess scale (RAS) [48].

Scotland

The Scottish Recovery Network was established in 2004 and is part of the overall Scottish Mental Health Strategy laid out in several documents including Scotland'due south Mental Health Strategy: 2012–2015 [49] which builds on previous documents Delivering for Mental Health [l] and Towards a Mentally Flourishing Scotland [51]. The strategy identifies vii themes that cut across the mental health work program for promotion, prevention, treatment, intendance and recovery (e.thou., working with families and carers; peer work and support; support for self-management and self-help; stigma and right of people with mental illness, personal, social, and clinical outcomes; and efficient use of new engineering). There are currently no mandatory, universal clinical outcome measures in mental health. Ongoing work on a mental wellness quality indicator profile has recommended that there is a role out nationally, beyond mental health services, of the recording and reporting of a balanced fix of measures that span the dimensions of Scotland'southward quality strategy for mental health services—timely, equitable, effective, efficient, person centred and safe (five measures of each are in development).Patient safety experience is as well measured through the National availability of a patient prophylactic climate tool developed through the Scottish Patient Safety Program. Core Net is currently used in several services as a clinical outcome tool allowing private recovery monitoring and service level effectiveness measurement.

The Scottish Recovery Indicator 2 (SRI ii) framework, [52] designed by the Scottish Recovery Network, was launched at the end of October 2011 and constitutes a revised and enhanced version of the start 2009 Scottish Recovery Indicator (SRI). This is a service evolution tool for mental health to develop a cycle of continuous comeback. It is based on ten recovery indicators and half dozen sources of information (assessments, care plans, service data, service provider, service user, and informal carer). Information technology aims to support services and teams to enhance their recovery approach through cocky-cess. As of Baronial 2013, SRI 2 had been completed to action planning stage by over 270 services across Scotland.

The voluntary sector have been using recovery effect focused measurements such as the Recovery Star and these approaches take increasingly been used in conjunction with statutory services in collaborative care approaches. The Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter tool (I.ROC) has been developed past a third sector voluntary system. Wellness Recovery Actions Plans and Advanced statements are other examples of personalized recovery supporting documents.

United States

The concepts of recovery and recovery-oriented services and systems are increasingly integrated into behavioral health care in the United States. In 2011, the Substance Abuse and Mental Wellness Services Administration (SAMHSA) identified "Recovery Support" as 1 of its 8 Strategic Initiatives and launched its Recovery Support Strategic Initiative. Through the Recovery Support Strategic Initiative, the bureau has delineated four major dimensions that support a life in recovery—Health, Home, Purpose, and Community. In addition, SAMHSA established 10 guiding principles [53] of recovery and recovery oriented services which include the following components: promise, person-driven, many pathways, holistic, peer-support, relational, civilisation, addresses trauma, strengths/responsibility, and respect.

SAMHSA has also been pilot-testing a recovery measurement tool comprised of 21 questions that explore a patient's quality of life and overall health. The SAMHSA tool includes the World Health Organization Quality of Life (QOL)-8 as well as a set of additional questions designed to specifically learn about the individual's mental health and substance abuse recovery and sense of efficacy in navigating the healthcare organisation and managing the full gamut of housing, relationships, and wellness. Upon successful completion of the pilot test, the recovery tool will exist embedded in SAMHSA's data collection efforts across the The states.

At the same time, SAMHSA launched BRSS TACS (Bringing Recovery Supports to Scale Technical Help Centre Strategy), a 5-year national preparation and technical assistance project [54] that supports the expansion and integration of recovery-oriented care delivered by mental health providers. Within the context of health reform and drawing on research, exercise, and personal feel of recovering individuals, SAMHSA is leading efforts to advance the agreement of recovery and ensure that recovery-oriented behavioral health services and systems are adopted and implemented in every state and customs.

Discussion

Participating countries are at various stages of developing and implementing recovery frameworks and measures for routine use in mental wellness care. Some countries have developed their own prepare of recovery measures (e.g., Scotland) while others seek to adapt measures developed by other countries to their particular systems and identified needs (e.one thousand., Commonwealth of australia, New Zealand). A recovery orientation has been embraced equally a key component of mental health policy in well-nigh Anglophone countries (Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, Scotland, and U.s.) and recently also in the Netherlands. However, countries' programs described here are not necessarily based on the aforementioned conceptual understanding of recovery and the degree to which mental health services are or should exist penetrated past this approach. Despite growing acknowledgement of service users' function in the determination-making process of what kind of services they are receiving, well-nigh mental health systems are still far from implementing recovery-oriented practices across all services. Some countries are just at the beginning of this process while others have already invested heavily in bringing their mental health system in line with recovery- oriented practices including the development and implementation of recovery-oriented measures as part of routine quality measurement in mental wellness care. The programs and initiatives described here demand to be contextualized not only inside the legal and structural framework of a country'due south health system, just also within the wider national context of work undertaken in various areas and jurisdictions of each state: east.m., changes in legislation, the development of a national framework and increased research opportunities and funding are of import preconditions to pave the style for a paradigm shift inside a state's mental health care system. Equally important, notwithstanding, seems to be a buy-in from major stakeholders—i.e., providers and payers/funders of mental health services and service user groups. The level of interest and degree of political activity that the latter tin can mount to shape strategies for mental health intendance reform seem to exist some other important supporting element for moving towards recovery-oriented services across the organization. Another important factor is the education of mental wellness professionals, service users and their families and the public at large to achieve an overall culture change regarding mental illness. National health intendance systems similar Scotland's seem to facilitate the channeling of these different components into 1 cohesive evolution and implementation strategy as demonstrated in the evolution and implementation of SRI.

This review provides a point-in time overview of where countries are in terms of prioritizing recovery-oriented services and how they approach implementing services that align with the principles of recovery-oriented mental health care. To movement from delivery statements and frameworks to the actual implementation of recovery principles across all services and levels of care, it will exist of import to build on this commonage knowledge and use the emerging enquiry to shape and inform future policies. This will require not just commitment at the policy and service provider level on the ane hand simply renewed commitment by the research community as well. In improver, the field needs a better understanding of the human relationship between recovery outcomes and traditional clinical outcomes, and how to ameliorate operationalize service user reported outcomes measures as well as those measures that are aimed at the recovery orientation of service providers or systems. Frameworks similar Chime can provide a taxonomy of a common recovery outcomes framework and support the evolution of measures of recovery, both at the personal and system level.

Conclusions

This overview provides insights into the electric current state of recovery-oriented mental health care and countries' different approaches for implementing recovery oriented services and measures. While recovery has gained credence as an important domain in health care in many countries, the implementation and evaluation of recovery concepts throughout care delivery systems in an ongoing and consistent way is still a work in progress and will need sustained resources and commitment past all stakeholders involved in this process.

Abbreviations

ADOM:

booze and drug outcome measure

ARI:

advancing recovery in Ireland

AWMF:

German language Clan of the Scientific Medical Societies

BRSS TACS:

Bringing Recovery Supports to Scale Technical Assistance Center Strategy

DGPPN:

High german Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics

HoNOS:

Health of the Nations Outcome Scale

HRB:

Health Enquiry Board (Ireland)

IIMHL:

International Initiative for Mental Health Leadership

I.ROC:

Individual Recovery Outcomes Counter tool

MANSA:

Manchester Brusque Assessment of Quality of Life

MHCC:

Mental Health Commission of Canada

QOL:

quality of life

QPR:

the process of recovery questionnaire

QUARTS:

quality cess of regional treatment systems for schizophrenia

RAS:

the recovery assessment scale

ROPI:

recovery oriented practices index

SAMHSA:

Substance Abuse and Mental Wellness Services Assistants

SMI:

astringent mental disease

SRI:

Scottish recovery indicator

References

1. Anthony WA. Recovery from mental illness: the guiding vision of the mental health service organisation in the 1990. Psychosoc Rehabil J. 1993;16:xi–23.

   Article  Google Scholar

2. Leamy M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Slade M. Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br J Psychiatry. 2011;199:445–52.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

3. Fisher CE, Spaeth-Rublee B, Pincus HA for the IMHL Clinical Leaders Group. Developing mental health-care quality indicators: toward a common framework. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013;25:75–lxxx.

   Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

4. Parameswaran South, Spaeth-Rublee B, Huynh PT, Pincus HA. Comparison of national mental health quality assessment programs across the earth. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63:982–8.

   Commodity  Google Scholar

5. Spaeth-Rublee B, Pincus HA, Silvestri F, Peters J. Measuring the quality of mental wellness intendance: an international comparison. Int J Environ Res Public Wellness. 2014;eleven:10384–ix.

   Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar

6. Commonwealth of Australia. Quaternary national mental wellness plan. An calendar for collaborative authorities action in mental health 2009–2014. 2009. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/primary/publishing.nsf/Content/9A5A0E8BDFC55D3BCA257BF0001C1B1C/$File/plan09v2.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2015.

7. Victorian Section of Wellness. Framework for recovery-oriented practice. Country Government of Victoria. 2011. https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/getfile/?sc_itemid={47D26EAC-5A2C-44FA-A52A-2F387F3C4612}&championship=Framework%20for%20Recovery-oriented%20Practice. Accessed 22 April 2015.

8. Queensland Health and Community Services Workforce Council. Values into action: customs mental wellness practice framework. 2012. http://www.mymentalhealth.org.au/content/Document/cmh%20practice%20framework_final%28web%29.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2015.

9. Australia. National standards for mental health services. 2010. http://www.health.gov.au/cyberspace/main/publishing.nsf/content/CFA833CB8C1AA178CA257BF0001E7520/$File/servst10v2.pdf. Accessed twenty Apr 2015.

10. Democracy of Australia. National practice standards for the mental health workforce. 2013. https://world wide web.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/5D7909E82304E6D2CA257C430004E877/$File/wkstd13.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2015.

11. Republic of Australia. A national framework for recovery-oriented mental health services: policy and theory. 2013. https://www.wellness.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/B2CA4C28D59C74EBCA257C1D0004A79D/$File/recovpol.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2015.

12. Republic of Australia. A national framework for recovery-oriented mental wellness services: guide for practitioners and providers. 2013. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/67D17065514CF8E8CA257C1D00017A90/$File/recovgde.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2015.

13. Burgess P, Pirkis J, Coombs T, Rosen A. Assessing the value of existing recovery measures for routine use in Australian mental health services. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011;45(four):267–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

14. Democracy of Australia. Mental health services in Australia. Your experience of service. 2012. https://mhsa.aihw.gov.au/committees/mhissc/Yeah-survey/. Accessed 22 Apr 2015.

15. Australian Mental Health Outcomes and Classification Network. Living in the community questionnaire (LCQ). 2016. http://world wide web.amhocn.org/special-projects/living-customs-questionnaire-lcq. Accessed 18 May 2016.

16. Mental Wellness Commission Canada. Updated international review of recovery guidelines. Final study. 2015. http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/system/files/individual/t/Terminal%20Updated%20MHCC%20Recovery%20Guidelines%202014%2001%2015.pdf. Accessed eighteen May 2016.

17. Ministry building of Health Services/Ministry building of Children and Family unit Development. Healthy minds, healthy people: a ten-year plan to address mental health and substance apply in British Columbia. 2010. http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library/publications/yr/2010/healthy_minds_healthy_people.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2016.

18. Newberry DJ, Strong AD. An evaluation framework driven by recovery-focused outcomes. Can J Community Mental Health. 2009;29(2):73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar

19. Mental Health Commission Canada. Informing the future: mental health indicators for Canada. 2015. http://world wide web.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/informing-time to come-mental-wellness-indicators-canada. Accessed 18 May 2015.

20. Eye for Applied Enquiry in Mental Health & Habit. Informing the futurity: mental wellness indicators for Canada technical written report. 2015. http://world wide web.sfu.ca/carmha/publications/informing-the-hereafter-technical-report.html. Accessed 23 May 2016.

21. Section of Wellness. The journeying to recovery: the government'south vision for mental wellness care. 2001. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.britain/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4058900.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

22. Appleby 50. Department of Health. Breaking downward barriers clinical case for alter: report by Louis Appleby, National Manager for Mental Wellness. London: Department of Health; 2007. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.britain/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_074578.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

23. Shepherd G, Boardman J, Slade M. Making recovery a reality. Sainsbury Eye for Mental Health, London, UK. 2008. http://www.imroc.org/wp-content/uploads/Making_recovery_a_reality_policy_paper.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

24. Department of Health. New horizons: towards a shared vision for mental health. Department of Wellness: London. 2009. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.britain/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_109708.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

25. Centre for Mental Health/Mental Health Network NHS Confederation. Implementing recovery through organisational modify. Continuing the journey. London: Eye for Mental Wellness; 2010. http://www.hacw.nhs.great britain/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=23930. Accessed 10 October 2016.

26. Joint Commissioning Panel for Mental Wellness. Guidance for implementing values-based commissioning in mental health. 2013. http://world wide web.jcpmh.info/resource/guidance-values-based-commissioning-mental-wellness/. Accessed 24 May 2016.

27. Her Majesty's Regime. No health without mental health: a cantankerous-government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages. London: Section of Health; 2011. https://www.gov.britain/government/uploads/organization/uploads/attachment_data/file/213761/dh_124058.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

28. Department of Health. No health without mental health—mental health dashboard, DH—leading the nation's health and care, December 2013. https://www.gov.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/265824/Mental_Health_Dashboard-Tech_Appendix.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

29. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde, editors. S3-Leitinie Psychosoziale Therapien bei schweren psychischen Erkrankungen. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2012. p. 32–35, 148–157 (German).

30. Hasan A, Wobrock T, Großimlinghaus I, Zielasek J, Janssen B, Reich-Erkelenz D, Kopp I, Gaebel W, Falkai P. Die Aktualisierung der DGPPN S3-Leilinie Schizophrenie—aktueller Stand. Die Psychiatrie. 2015;12(1):19–27.

    Google Scholar

31. Kartalova-O'Doherty Y, Tedstone Doherty D. Reconnecting with life: personal experiences of recovering from mental health problems in Ireland. HRB Enquiry Serial 8. Dublin: Health Research board. 2010. http://www.hrb.ie/uploads/tx_hrbpublications/HRB_Research_Series_8_Reconnecting_with_life.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

32. Health Service Executive. Advancing recovery in Ireland (ARI). 2013. http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/4/Mental_Health_Services/advancingrecoveryireland/. Accessed 24 May 2016.

33. Kenniscentrum P. Project group activity plan SMI, crossing the bridge. A national action plan to improve care of severe mental illness. 2014. http://www.kenniscentrumphrenos.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/English-summary.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

34. Killaspy H, White Due south, Wright C, et al. The evolution of the quality indicator for rehabilitative care (QuIRC): a measure of best do for facilities for people with long term mental health problems. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11:35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Fundamental  Google Scholar

35. van Weeghel J, van de Lindt S, Slooff C, van de Kar F, van Vugt M, Wiersma D. A regional assessment of the quality of treat people with schizophrenia in the Netherlands. Psychiatr Serv. 2011;62(7):789–92.

    Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

36. Mental Health Commission. Design for mental health services in New Zealand—how things need to be. 1998. http://world wide web.moh.govt.nz/notebook/nbbooks.nsf/0/0E6493ACAC236A394C25678D000BEC3C/$file/Design.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

37. Ministry of Wellness. Rising to the challenge: the mental health and addiction service development programme 2012–2017. http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/rising-challenge-mental-health-and-addiction-service-development-program-2012-2017. Accessed 24 May 2016.

38. Smith M, Baxendine S. Outcome measurement in New Zealand. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27(iv):276–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar

39. Ministry of Health. New Zealand health strategy 2016. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2016. http://www.wellness.govt.nz/publication/new-zealand-health-strategy-2016. Accessed 4 October 2016.

40. Deering D, Robinson G, Wheeler A, Pulford J, Frampton C, Dunbar L, Black S. Preliminary work towards validating a draft outcome mensurate for use in the alcohol and drug sector. Auckland: Te Pou o te whakaara Nui; 2009. http://www.tepou.co.nz/uploads/files/resource-avails/Preliminary-Work-Towards-Validating-a-Draft-Issue-Measure-for-Use-in-the-Alcohol-and-Drug-Sector.pdf. Accessed iv Oct 2016.

41. Te Pou. Measuring recovery in adult community addiction services: the testing and validation of ADOM department 3 recovery questions. http://www.tepou.co.nz/uploads/files/resources-assets/measuring-recovery-in-adult-community-addiction-services.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

42. Jury A, Smith M. Measuring recovery in adult community addiction services. Northward Z J Psychol. 2016;45(1):13–9.

    Google Scholar

43. Norwegian Ministry building of Health and Intendance Services. Om opptrappingsplan for psykisk helse 1999- 2006. Endringer i statsbudsjettet for 1998. (Almost escalation plan for mental health 1999–2006. Changes in the state budget for 1998). (Norwegian) Proffer No. 63 (1997–1998). https://world wide web.regjeringen.no/no/tema/helse-og-omsorg/psykisk-helse/stprp-nr-63-1997-1998/id439521/. Accessed 24 May 2016.

44. OECD. Mental health in Norway. In: OECD reviews of health care quality: Norway. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2014. http://dx.doi.org/x.1787/9789264208469-viii-en. Accessed ten Jun 2015.

45. Helsedirektoratet. Sammen om mestring. Veileder i lokalt psykisk helsearbeid og rusarbeid for voksne. 2014. (Coping together. Guidelines for local mental and substance abuse intendance for adults), (Norwegian) Helsedirektoratet (Norwegian Directorate of Health), IS-2076. https://helsedirektoratet.no/Lists/Publikasjoner/Attachments/410/Sammen-om-mestring-Veileder-i-lokalt-psykisk-helsearbeid-og-rusarbeid-for-voksne-IS-2076.pdf.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

46. Borg M, Karlsson B, Stenshammer A. Recoveryorienterte praksiser. En systematisk kunnskapssammenstilling (Recovery oriented practices. A noesis based overview). (Norwegian) 2013. NAPHA. http://www.napha.no/multimedia/4281/NAPHA-Rapport-Recovery-web.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

47. Neil ST, Pitt L, Kilbride Chiliad, Welford Grand, Nothard S, Sellwood W, Morrison T. The questionnaire well-nigh the process of recovery (QPR): a measurement tool adult in collaboration with service users. Psychosis. 2009;i(2):145–55.

    Article  Google Scholar

48. Corrigan P, Salzer M, Ralph R, Sangster Y, Keck L. Examining the gene structure of the recovery assessment calibration. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30:1035–41.

    Commodity  PubMed  Google Scholar

49. The Scottish Government. Mental health strategy for Scotland: 2012–2015. 2012. http://world wide web.gov.scot/Publications/2012/08/9714. Accessed 24 May 2016.

50. NHS Scotland. Delivering for mental health. 2006. http://www.gov.scot/resource/physician/157157/0042281.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

51. The Scottish Government. DG Health and Wellbeing. Toward a mentally flourishing scotland: the future of mental health comeback in Scotland 2008–2011. 2007. http://www.gov.scot/resource/md/201215/0053753.pdf. Accessed 24 May 2016.

52. Scottish Recovery Network 2011–2015. Scottish recovery indicator 2. http://world wide web.sri2.net/. Accessed 12 Nov 2015.

53. Samhsa'southward working definition of recovery: 10 guiding principles of recovery. http://content.samhsa.gov/ext/item?uri=/samhsa/content/item/10007447/10007447.pdf. Accessed 01 Oct 2016.

54. SAMHSA. Bringing recovery supports to scale. Technical Assistance Heart Strategy (BRSS TACS). http://www.samhsa.gov/brss-tacs. Accessed 23 Feb 2015.

Download references

Authors' contributions

Each author was responsible for writing the section of the review that pertains to his or her home country: GS wrote the chapter on Commonwealth of australia; EG and PP wrote the affiliate on Canada; PR wrote the chapter on England; WG, JZ, and IG wrote the affiliate on Germany; MW wrote the chapter on Ireland; JW wrote the chapter on kingdom of the netherlands; MS wrote the chapter on New Zealand; TR wrote the affiliate on Kingdom of norway; JM wrote the affiliate on Scotland; LP wrote the affiliate on the US system. HP and BSR wrote the Introduction, Methods, Word and Conclusion sections. All authors also edited and provided input on all sections of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This article represents the collaborative effort of a group of researchers, clinicians, and government officials beyond the participating countries. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they accept no competing interests.

Funding

Funding for this work was received by government and nongovernment organizations of the countries participating in the IIMHL project—Australia, Canada, England, Germany (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Nervenheilkunde.), Ireland, the netherlands, New Zealand (Te Pou), Norway, Scotland, and the Usa (SAMHSA).

Writer information

Affiliations

1. Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, 1051 Riverside Drive, Room 5813, Unit of measurement 09, New York, NY, 10032, United states

   Harold A. Pincus

2. Irving Institute for Clinical and Translational Inquiry, Columbia University and New York–Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, U.s.a.

   Harold A. Pincus

3. RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, The states

   Harold A. Pincus

4. Mental Health Services and Policy Research, New York Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, Usa

   Brigitta Spaeth-Rublee

5. InforMH, Health Organisation Data and Performance Reporting Branch, NSW Ministry of Heath, Sydney, Australia

   Grant Sara

6. Subject field of Psychiatry, Sydney Medical School, Academy of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

   Grant Sara

7. Faculty of Health Sciences, Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health & Habit (CARMHA), Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

   Elliot Yard. Goldner

8. Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Ottawa, ON, Canada

   Pamela N. Prince

9. Segmentation of Mental Health Services and Policy Research, Columbia University Medical Heart, New York, NY, USA

   Parashar Ramanuj

10. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine Academy Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Wolfgang Gaebel, Jürgen Zielasek & Isabell Großimlinghaus

11. The LVR Constitute of Healthcare Research, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Wolfgang Gaebel, Jürgen Zielasek & Isabell Großimlinghaus

12. The WHO Collaborating Center for Quality Assurance and Empowerment of Mental Wellness, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Wolfgang Gaebel, Jürgen Zielasek & Isabell Großimlinghaus

13. Mental Health Services, Dublin, Republic of ireland

    Margo Wrigley

14. Phrenos Centre of expertise, Utrecht, The netherlands

    Jaap van Weeghel

15. Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tranzo Scientific Centre for Care and Welfare, Tilburg Academy, Tilburg, Kingdom of the netherlands

    Jaap van Weeghel

16. Te Pou, National Centre of Evidence Based Workforce Development for the Mental Health, Addiction and Disability Sectors, Auckland, New Zealand

    Marker Smith

17. Division Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Kingdom of norway

    Torleif Ruud

18. Constitute of Clinical Medicine, Academy of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Torleif Ruud

19. Mental Health and Protection of Rights Division, Population Health Comeback Directorate, The Scottish Government, St Andrew's House, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

    John R. Mitchell

20. Sectionalisation of Evaluation, Analysis and Quality, Center for Behavioral Wellness Statistics and Quality, SAMHSA, Rockville, USA

    Lisa Patton

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harold A. Pincus.

Rights and permissions

Open Admission This article is distributed nether 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 writer(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/cypher/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

Well-nigh this article

Cite this commodity

Pincus, H.A., Spaeth-Rublee, B., Sara, G. et al. A review of mental wellness recovery programs in selected industrialized countries. Int J Ment Health Syst 10, 73 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-016-0104-4

Download citation

• Received: 07 July 2016

• Accepted: 17 October 2016

• Published: 01 December 2016

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-016-0104-4

Keywords

• Mental health
• Recovery measurement programs
• Quality

lehunterhin1955.blogspot.com

Source: https://ijmhs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13033-016-0104-4

Share this post