Abstract
Introduction The recovery approach aims to have users’ perspectives at the heart of service development and research; it is a holistic perspective that considers social needs, personal growth and inclusion. In the last decade recovery-oriented research and practice has increased greatly, however, a comprehensive model of recovery considering exclusively the perspectives of people with lived experience has not been devised.
Aims This review aimed to develop a framework and contextualise service users’ and informal caregivers’ understanding of recovery from severe mental health problems.
Methods A systematic search of 6 databases including key terms related to knowledge, experience and narratives AND mental health AND personal recovery. The search was supplemented with reference sourcing through grey literature, reference tracking and expert consultation. Data analysis consisted of a qualitative meta-synthesis using constant comparative methods.
Results Sixty-two studies were analysed. A pattern emerged regarding the recovery paradigms that the studies used to frame their findings. Recovery domains included Legal, political and economic recovery; Social recovery; Individual recovery; and Clinical recovery experience. Service users’ definitions of recovery tended to prioritise social aspects, particularly being accepted and connecting with others, while caregivers focused instead on clinical definitions of recovery such as symptom remission. Both groups emphasised individual aspects such as becoming self-sufficient and achieving personal goals, which was strongly linked with having economic means for independence.
Conclusions The recovery model provided by this review offers a template for further research in the field and a guide for policy and practice. Predominant definitions of recovery currently reflect understandings of mental health which focus on an individual perspective, while this review found an important emphasis on socio-political aspects. At the same time, only a small number of studies took place in low-income countries, focused on minoritised populations, or included caregivers’ perspectives. These are important gaps in the literature that require further attention.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was part of a PhD supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London (NIHR CLAHRC South London) at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Not applicable
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Authorship credits: NV participated in the conception, analysis, interpretation of data, drafting, revising, and final approval.
PCG participated in analysis, interpretation of data, revising and final approval.
MH participated in the conception, interpretation of data, revising and final approval.
VL participated in the conception, interpretation of data, revising and final approval.
MB participated in analysis, interpretation of data, revising and final approval.
AO participated in analysis and final approval.
SE-L participated in the conception, interpretation of data, revising and final approval.
Data Availability
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
