Abstract
Objective:
Mental health services in the UK, Australia and other Anglophone countries have moved towards supporting personal recovery as a primary orientation. To provide an empirically grounded foundation to identify and evaluate recovery-oriented interventions, we previously published a conceptual framework of personal recovery based on a systematic review and narrative synthesis of existing models. Our objective was to test the validity and relevance of this framework for people currently using mental health services.
Method:
Seven focus groups were conducted with 48 current mental health consumers in three NHS trusts across England, as part of the REFOCUS Trial. Consumers were asked about the meaning and their experience of personal recovery. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis applying a constant comparison approach was used to analyse the data. The analysis aimed to explore the validity of the categories within the conceptual framework, and to highlight any areas of difference between the conceptual framework and the themes generated from new data collected from the focus groups.
Results:
Both the inductive and deductive analysis broadly validated the conceptual framework, with the super-ordinate categories Connectedness, Hope and optimism, Identity, Meaning and purpose, and Empowerment (CHIME) evident in the analysis. Three areas of difference were, however, apparent in the inductive analysis. These included practical support; a greater emphasis on issues around diagnosis and medication; and scepticism surrounding recovery.
Conclusions:
This study suggests that the conceptual framework of personal recovery provides a defensible theoretical base for clinical and research purposes which is valid for use with current consumers. However, the three areas of difference further stress the individual nature of recovery and the need for an understanding of the population and context under investigation.
Introduction
Personal recovery from mental health problems has been defined as ‘a deeply personal, unique process of changing one’s attitudes, values, feelings, goals, skills and/or roles … a way of living a satisfying, hopeful and contributing life even with the limitations caused by illness’ (Anthony, 1993). This widely accepted definition underpins mental health policy in most Anglophone countries (Slade et al., 2012b), including Australia, where the fourth National Mental Health Plan references recovery and social inclusion as top priorities (Australian Government, 2009). However, it is still subject to a degree of conceptual confusion and misunderstanding (Davidson and Roe, 2007; Meehan et al., 2008; Pilgrim, 2008). Despite widespread support for the concept, Braslow argues that recovery has become an unquestioned over-arching principle in mental healthcare, further stating it to be ‘a melange of beliefs and values that emerged from a number of disparate intellectual and social movements’ (Braslow, 2013). This lack of clarity also extends to consumers (Aston and Coffey, 2012). To facilitate the translation of policy into practice, there is a need to operationalise personal recovery so it can be applied and evaluated within clinical and research settings (Andresen et al., 2011; Burgess et al., 2011).
Conceptual framework of personal recovery
To provide a theoretical foundation to understand recovery, a systematic review and narrative synthesis of existing recovery models was conducted to develop a conceptual framework of personal recovery. Out of this, five key recovery processes were identified which collectively comprise the CHIME framework: Connectedness, Hope and optimism, Identity, Meaning and purpose, and Empowerment. Within each of these categories, a number of sub-themes were included which defined and described the five recovery processes (Leamy et al., 2011).
This conceptual framework of personal recovery has already proved to be a useful research utility, providing a taxonomy for categorising different intervention strategies. Further evidence reviews have been conducted into different areas of the CHIME framework; for example, Hope (Schrank et al., 2012), Strengths (Schrank et al., 2012) and Connectedness, Identity and Empowerment (Tew et al., 2012). Individual interventions can also be positioned within the framework, in relation to their intended outcomes. For example, studies of peer support (Kaplan et al., 2011) or meaningful activities (Howard et al., 2010) can be categorised alongside interventions addressing Connectedness or Meaning and Purpose, respectively. Reviews of recovery measures have also made use of the framework within their analysis (Shanks et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2012). Finally, to test the validity of the conceptual framework across different settings, a further review was conducted which established that across different countries the framework captured key aspects of recovery, and could be recommended as the basis for a common international understanding of recovery (Slade et al., 2012a).
Validity and relevance
According to Hammersley, qualitative research should be judged according to both validity and relevance (Hammersley, 2007, 2008). Within this context, relevance relates to whether the study (i) addresses meaningful questions to the population of interest, (ii) adds to the existing knowledge base, and (iii) is generalisable to settings beyond that in which the research was conducted (Hammersley, 2008; Pope and Mays, 2006). The conceptual framework was based on studies which included many individuals who described themselves as ‘in recovery’ or ‘relatively well and symptom free’. This raises the question as to how valid and useful the conceptual framework may be in making sense of the experience of individuals who are currently using mental health services, including those who may or may not define themselves as being ‘in recovery’. Therefore, this paper focuses on the first and third aspects of validity and relevance – namely, whether the conceptual framework is meaningful for current mental health consumers.
Aims
This study aims to explore the validity of the conceptual framework using data collected from focus groups conducted with current mental health consumers and to highlight any areas of deviance between the conceptual framework and the themes generated from the focus groups.
Methods
Design
This study is part of the REFOCUS programme, a large, mixed-methods research programme investigating personal recovery from mental health problems in England (Slade et al., 2011). We used three types of triangulation in this study. These were data, methodological and environmental. Triangulation was achieved by comparing data collected from focus groups with a framework developed from the literature. This meant that the data collection method (data and methodological triangulation), sampling (data triangulation) and study location (environmental triangulation) all varied. We used triangulation to obtain an in-depth understanding of experiences of personal recovery. Specifically, by combining different research methodologies, perspectives and settings we aimed to add rigour, breadth, richness and depth to the analysis (Petty and Triolo, 1999).
Setting
Seven focus groups with individuals using community-based teams were held at the team bases within three mental health trusts from June to September 2010. The settings were selected to represent a range of metropolitan, urban and semi-rural geographical areas and to be able to draw participants from local populations which differed in terms of socio-economic status, race, culture and ethnicity.
Participants
We recruited a convenience sample of working age adults (aged 18–65 years), who were currently using (or had used in the previous 6 months) community-based mental health teams. For one focus group, participants were also recruited from voluntary sector organisations within south London. To be included, participants had to be willing and able to discuss their recent experiences of receiving support from mental health community teams. As the sample used within the study was a convenience sample, characteristics of the individuals who declined to take part were not available. Care coordinators were asked to approach a range of people with differing levels of service use and time within services, and efforts were made to contact a range of clinical team types (e.g. early intervention, assertive outreach, forensic, support and recovery) to ensure a diversity of opinions.
We aimed to recruit between six and eight participants per focus group. Prior to the study, we estimated that we would need five to 10 focus groups to reach thematic saturation. Data collection was terminated after seven focus groups because saturation was reached.
Procedure
All participants were recruited through care coordinators within community-based mental health teams and via posters displayed within local community-based organisations and hospital outpatient departments. Participants received £20 as a thank you for their time and participation and were provided with lunch at the conclusion of each focus group session. Participants were given a written information sheet outlining the purpose of the study and were encouraged to ask questions before giving their written informed consent.
Each focus group was moderated by two researchers: one from a professional research background and another who had lived experience of using mental health services. The moderators alternated leading the discussion and acting as support moderator. Each group lasted approximately 1.5 hours.
At the beginning of each group, participants completed a brief socio-demographic questionnaire. Participants were then asked to agree to a number of ground rules, which stressed the importance of every member’s opinion, and asked for participants to discuss the question even if they felt their opinion had already been stated. This was further emphasised during the group by the use of prompts which asked if anyone had any other or different opinions to those being expressed. The focus group discussion guide contained open-ended questions that explored participants’ perceptions of the term recovery, and also, where services had either supported or hampered their recovery. For instance, ‘What does recovery mean to you?’; ‘How has your community mental health worker/team helped or supported you in your recovery?’; ‘What about the ways that your community mental health worker/team does not help or support you in your recovery?’; and ‘What could your community mental health worker/team be doing differently to better support your recovery?’.
Analysis
The seven focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were anonymised and imported into NVivo (version 7, QSR International) for analysis. In order to explore the validity of the CHIME framework of personal recovery, two separate approaches to analysis were concurrently employed. First, the focus groups were analysed thematically using deductive coding. The deductive coding framework comprised the five super-ordinate categories of the previously published conceptual framework (Leamy et al., 2011) and are detailed in Table 1 (with the full deductive coding framework available in the Online Data Supplement). Second, in order to identify potential areas of difference, inductive coding was used. Inductive coding ensured the coders were alert to themes and patterns within the data which would otherwise have been obscured, reframed or left undetected had the data only been analysed using the deductive codes. Particular attention was paid to any deviant cases and new themes emerging from the focus groups that were not adequately captured in the deductive framework.
Deductive coding framework (taken from Leamy et al., 2011).
Two independent coders (VB and ML) conducted both the inductive and deductive coding. The coders met to review their coded passages, to agree on the major themes and to discuss coding differences to arrive at a consensus. This process of investigator corroboration is designed to maximise validity and trustworthiness, and safeguards against bias within the analysis process. As part of an ongoing process of researcher reflexivity, coders kept theoretical memos to capture thought processes and ideas as they developed. This ensured that any pre-conceived ideas about the data were recorded and that the impact of previous knowledge, including professional background, on the analysis was openly discussed.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the South East London Research Ethics Committee 4 England.
Findings
Forty-eight individuals participated in the seven focus groups. The focus groups were conducted in three NHS trusts in England: 2gether Gloucester Foundation trust (n = 2); Leicester Partnership Trust (n = 2) and South London and Maudsley Foundation Trust (n = 3). The demographic characteristics of the participants are detailed in Table 2.
Sample characteristics of participants (n = 48) included in the focus groups.
CMHT, Community Mental Health Team; MH, mental health; SLaM, South London and Maudsley.
The five recovery super-ordinate themes Connectedness, Hope and optimism, Identity, Meaning and purpose, and Empowerment, comprising the CHIME framework are firstly presented. Where data arising from the inductive coding process were seen to fit within the parameters of the CHIME framework (e.g. the inductive coding suggested a change in emphasis of one of the categories within CHIME) it is reported alongside the other data relating to that CHIME theme. This is followed by three new themes which emerged from the inductive analysis. These new themes were: (i) practical support; (ii) issues around diagnosis and medication; and (iii) scepticism surrounding recovery. Reported themes within this paper arose consistently across focus groups, unless otherwise stated.
Connectedness
Connectedness emerged as a very important process in recovery and included a number of subthemes such as peer support, support from others, and relationships. Central to this super-ordinate theme was the sense of being connected to others. All three subordinate themes were evident in the deductive analysis.
Peer support and support groups
There were many different people who could offer support to individuals, including close family friends, members of the community and mental health professionals. Participants frequently emphasised the importance of peer support, received by attending organised groups, from contact with peer support workers, or informally, from friendships that developed among people with lived experience.
‘Like I said before you know they’re organising a group, hearing voices groups and um, it’s very helpful. We meet … every Thursday and we share our experiences with each other and it has helped a lot.’ (Leicester FG2, female participant)
Support from others
For many people, having a range of personal relationships with others was critical to the recovery of a life worth living. For some, connectedness went beyond immediate family and friends to include feeling connected within the wider community, or feeling part of society.
‘You’re not recovered if you no longer cut your wrists or take an overdose … that’s not a life. For most people you’re recovered if you have friends, if you have family or if you have a job.’ (SLaM FG1, female participant)
Relationships
Finally, supportive and collaborative relationships with professionals were seen as having a positive impact on recovery.
‘Whereas I’ve got this nurse who sits down and listens to what I have to say …, gives me her opinion of things and provides with the right medications for me. That has helped me recover quicker.’ (Gloucester FG2, female participant)
Hope and optimism
Hope was central to most individuals, especially in the early stages of recovery where people described experiencing a reawakening of hope after despair. Hope was defined by a number of secondary categories, namely ‘having the motivation to change’, ‘having dreams and aspirations’, ‘a belief in the possibility of recovery’ and ‘positive thinking’. All of these categories emphasise the idea that recovery is an active process, rather than something that is ‘done to’ the person.
‘Yeah, but hope is one of those things that you have to do yourself. No one’s going to hope for you, really. And optimism, because there is a lot of optimism.’ (Gloucester FG1, male participant)
Hope-inspiring relationships
Central to many of the factors defining hope was the presence of hope-inspiring relationships. This subordinate category was frequently apparent in the deductive analysis, where relationships which promoted hope were discussed. These relationships could be with family, friends and professionals or with a higher power, and all shared the common characteristic that they engendered a belief that recovery was possible. For some participants, role models provided this hope for the future.
‘The employment specialist, she was an ex-patient and I find that a real positive. It makes me realise there’s hope, because I never thought there was hope. I thought I just can’t get a job, but there is hope, y’know.’ (SLaM FG3, male participant)
Equally powerful was the evidence that emerged from the inductive coding of how professionals could reduce hope and the belief in recovery.
‘Well for me, when I got struck down with the mental illness, I went to the usual psychiatrist and they told me, “Ah. This is a chronic illness. That means you will have to live with it.” So the recovery for me is a dirty word. Right?’ (SLaM FG3, male participant)
Identity
Rebuilding / redefining a positive sense of identity
Mental health problems can dislocate or undermine people’s sense of identity and self-worth. For many people, the key to recovery can involve redefining or regaining a positive sense of self. For some, the process of recovery is seen as involving some transformation of identity (discovering a new ‘me’).
‘So when you let go of the old person and say, “There’s going to be a new one, a better one”, then you’ll go quicker towards recovery. That’s what I discovered.’ (SLaM FG2, male participant)
However, not all participants shared this perspective and, from the inductive coding, it emerged that some participants were holding on to the aspiration of reclaiming their prior social identity and sense of self.
‘Recovery for me is, 2 years ago I have family, job, every single thing. And I want to recover my previous life.’ (SLaM FG2, male participant)
Multiple dimensions of identity
Regardless of whether the individual wanted to return to their pre-illness life or redefine a new sense of self, for most individuals it was important that they saw themselves as more than just their diagnosis. This was linked to the idea that an individual’s identity could not be viewed in a unitary way. Instead, multiple dimensions of identity were important and included cultural, ethnic and sexual identity. In particular, having mental health services and professionals who valued different dimensions of identity and treated you as an individual were crucial.
‘She hasn’t looked at me, at the colour of my skin, or my culture or background, she’s just taking me as an individual.’ (Gloucester FG2, female participant)
Overcoming stigma
The final theme captured in the category identity was ‘overcoming stigma’. Part of the journey to regain a positive sense of self was to overcome stigma and, hence, it was seen that wider society needed to be on-board with recovery.
‘When I heard that I had a mental health problem I ran a mile. I was not connecting with the system, so, recovery, it’s not just on us, it’s on the outside as well. Because once they recover and there’s no longer that stigma against mental health then we might feel a bit better in ourselves.’ (SLaM FG3, female participant)
Meaning and purpose
Meaning and purpose was a broad category and included many inter-related elements. These themes ranged from finding meaning in the illness experience to rebuilding life and having meaningful social roles. This category also included spirituality and developing spirituality (not shown). In essence, living a meaningful and purposeful life whatever that meant to the person was the goal of most individuals.
‘For me, simply the definition of recovery is having the life you want. So it’s not every day you can see your friends. It’s not every day you can … but that on the days that you can do the things that you would do if you didn’t have a mental illness, those are recovery days, in a nutshell.’ (SLaM FG1, female participant)
Meaningful life and social roles
Individuals stressed that the activities and occupations that made life meaningful for people without mental health problems, or ‘normal’ people as they termed it, were the same activities and occupations that made life meaningful if you had a mental health problem.
‘I think psychiatrists can do worse than just to think … what’s important in their daily life, service users are no different. All the things that everybody, every normal person wants, service users want exactly the same, they just need support to get it.’ (SLaM FG1, male participant)
Rebuilding of life
Having a meaningful life was also about having a purpose or a reason to get up each day. For some individuals this included volunteering, which allowed them to feel that they were giving back to the community and achieving within their day-to-day lives. This for many was part of rebuilding a meaningful life.
‘I volunteer at the [service for disabled people] and I feel like I’m contributing to people. So when a week’s gone by I don’t think, “Oh, that’s another wasted week.” I think I’ve done something useful.’ (Leicester FG1, male participant)
Meaning of the mental illness experience
Finally, recovery for some individuals included understanding or finding meaning in their mental illness experience, which ranged from spiritual or religious meanings through to adoption of a medical view of mental illness. Giving an experience meaning was seen as normalising that experience, which in itself could have positive implications, including increased acceptance and reduced self-stigma.
Empowerment
Empowerment emerged as a central recovery process which was achieved in different ways, including personal responsibility, having control over life and focusing on strengths.
Personal responsibility
For others, empowerment specifically meant being involved in decision-making and having some say in their care and treatment, particularly where medication and hospitalisation were concerned. Personal responsibility could also involve positive risk taking, particularly in the context of care planning and goal setting – and it was helpful when this was supported by the professionals involved.
‘I always used to tell the doctor if I was reducing. I would inform him or her, “I’m going to reduce my medication. You don’t mind, do you?” And he’d say, “Well, we’re all against it but it’s up to you.” But because if I had a problem I’d go back to him, “I’ve got a problem and I’ve increased it again” they got used to that and they started to trust me.’ (Gloucester FG1, male participant)
Interestingly, from the inductive coding we found that not all participants wanted to have control over their medication and saw it as the professionals’ role to deal with this.
‘I would avoid self-medication. Some people are allowed to choose, to a certain degree, what dosage they take, what times they take. I would always want a professional person to say, “That is what you require for your illness.” Mess with tablets, it could end up a catastrophe, couldn’t it?’ (Gloucester FG1, male participant)
This suggests a more nuanced understanding of empowerment that involves taking informed choices as to which sorts of decisions people make for themselves and which they may wish to leave with professionals.
Control over life
For some, feeling in control meant being able to get on with day-to-day life, even when symptoms were present. This included maintaining good physical and mental health, using self-management strategies, accessing self-help materials or seeking professional support as appropriate.
‘I know my symptoms and I think other people around me do know when I’m not well. But, like I said, you have to protect yourself as well. You have to make sure that you keep yourself well and happy.’ (Leicester FG1, male participant)
Focusing on strengths
The final area covered in Empowerment was focusing on strengths, where individuals often talked about adopting roles that were built around their personal strengths and resources.
‘My staff are very encouraged about the good stuff I’m doing. It might not be a big deal to other people here, but little things, just like getting up in the morning and not staying in bed, having a tidy flat, clean and tidy flat, they’re very encouraging. And my staff are focusing on good points because that helps instead of just the bad stuff.’ (Gloucester FG2, female participant)
Emergent themes arising from the inductive coding
Three new categories were apparent in the inductive analysis, which could not be subsumed within the existing themes included in the CHIME framework. Consequently, the following three themes represent additions to the categories included in the original framework.
Practical support
Some participants stressed the importance of practical support to improve their material circumstances, access wider life opportunities or simply to survive on a day-to-day basis at times when they were less able to manage daily activities and tasks. This, in turn, enabled them to move forward with their recovery. During the focus groups, individuals explicitly talked about the type of support they wanted from services and mental health professionals. Whereas much of the recovery literature has tended to focus more on the relationship qualities, participants were equally interested in practical outcomes that made their lives more liveable.
‘My current social worker’s done really nice things for me. I mean she’s introduced me to a place that decorates a room of yours, maybe one room a year, and that’s really improved my spirit.’ (SLaM FG1, male participant)
Although improvements in material circumstances may be seen to have a knock-on effect on other key processes, such as giving hope or empowerment, it is not easy just to subsume this within one of the already identified recovery processes.
Issues around diagnosis and medication
Another theme that emerged from the inductive coding was a greater emphasis on medication and diagnosis. As discussed above, some of this may be seen to relate to the theme of empowerment – participants either taking control over their medication or wishing to leave this responsibility with clinicians. However, some participants went beyond this; for example, highlighting issues around diagnosis and seeing misdiagnosis as potentially impeding recovery.
‘I think also … if you’re not diagnosed properly you’re never going to recover.’ (Gloucester FG1, male participant)
Scepticism surrounding recovery
Finally, one theme that may reflect current economic trends which for many consumers has resulted in a loss of services and cuts to mental health provision was that recovery was greeted with a certain level of scepticism by focus group participants.
‘I think recovery might be some sort of … I don’t know, maybe this is a bit [of] paranoia coming out, but it might be some way of the system coping with under resource. So they’d rather shift people who aren’t completely recovered, into the community.’ (Gloucester FG1, male participant)
Discussion
Our main finding is that the themes generated from the focus groups provided evidence to support the validity of the recovery processes identified in the conceptual framework of recovery. Broadly, the five super-ordinate categories of the framework, namely Connectedness, Hope and optimism, Identity, Meaning and purpose, and Empowerment were all supported within the analysis. Furthermore, the second-order categories included within CHIME (e.g. Relationships, Support from others, Hope-inspiring, etc.) were also apparent, although the inductive analysis did indicate some modifications to the definitions of each category. This broad validation indicates that the CHIME framework is a valid and relevant representation of recovery processes for current mental health consumers and is therefore a useful theory-based tool within research and clinical practice. The focus on the inductive analysis highlighted additional aspects that were not captured or emphasised in the original framework. In particular, the analysis suggested three new categories should be included as second- or third-order categories within the framework. These were (i) practical support; (ii) issues around diagnosis and medication; and (iii) scepticism surrounding recovery. The additional themes highlight the importance of qualitative work and involving the particular stakeholder group or community within the research to ensure that any underpinning theory is a good fit and appropriate to the particular context.
One emergent category of particular importance to service provision was the significance of practical support in relation to material circumstances, accessing opportunities and managing day-to-day survival. The inductive analysis suggests that practical support should be a second-order category within Connectedness (instead of being a lower third-order category). This finding regarding the importance of practical support contrasts with the recent literature evaluating the contribution of support workers to recovery processes, which often emphasise the importance of worker–consumer relationships (Huxley et al., 2009) and the teaching of self-management skills rather than simply providing practical support (Hill et al., 2010). The findings of the focus groups do, however, echo those of the 2010 Survey of High Impact Psychosis (SHIP) which is the second Australian national survey of psychotic illness. The survey highlighted that individuals with psychosis listed finances, housing and employment as their most pressing concerns alongside social isolation and that these areas were more of a concern to individuals than psychotic symptoms or ill health. Furthermore, 30% of individuals in the survey reported the need for practical assistance, including help with finances and seeking employment (Morgan et al., 2011, 2012; Stain et al., 2012; Waghorn et al., 2012).
Other differences emerged, at least in emphasis, between the data from the focus groups and the recovery literature analysed for the narrative synthesis. Within the literature it is often assumed that recovery involves becoming a new person and discovering new social roles (Davidson et al., 2006; Gordon, 2013; Vandekinderen et al., 2012), with a loss of the old self (Wisdom et al., 2008). Indeed, the most widely cited recovery definition talks about the development of new meaning and purpose (Anthony, 1993), whereas Whitwell talks about the ‘myth of recovery’ and returning back to the same as before (Whitwell, 1999). In contrast to the literature, participants in the present study expressed more mixed views, with some seeing recovery as returning to a pre-illness life. Although this does not suggest a change to the CHIME framework, this difference in emphasis has now been incorporated into the definition of Identity.
Linked to this shift in emphasis, there was also more concern with issues around medication and diagnosis, with correspondingly less emphasis on people’s own agency in confronting challenges and taking control over all aspect of their recovery journeys. One possible reason for these differences may relate to stages within the recovery journey. Within the present study, participants were recruited across community mental health teams and were likely to include people at earlier stages of their recovery journey. In contrast, the conceptual framework review tended to reflect the experiences of individuals further on in their recovery. This difference between the samples could explain how some of the focus group participants were more in touch with the identities and lifestyles that they had lost, whereas those whose experience informed the conceptual framework were more in touch with the new identities and lifestyles. The increased emphasis on diagnosis and medication suggests modification of the empowerment definition, and the inclusion of a new second- or third-order category covering the issue of diagnosis and medication within the super-ordinate theme of empowerment.
Strengths and limitations of the approach
One of the strengths of this paper was in the use of triangulation. Specifically, we used three types of triangulation (data, methodological and environmental) by comparing data collected within focus groups to a framework developed from the literature. Triangulation uses the relative strengths of different data sources and approaches to detect inconsistencies and thereby uncover deeper meanings within the data (Hammersley, 2008; Murphy et al., 1998). Second, this is the first study to specifically test the validity and relevance of an existing framework of personal recovery developed through a systematic review. This, coupled with an earlier paper (Slade et al., 2012a) which assessed cross-cultural validity, suggests that the conceptual framework of recovery is a useable and valid tool for use in future research and practice.
Despite the relative strengths of the study, there are four main limitations. First, the emergent categories included in the conceptual framework were only one way of grouping the findings, so the five recovery processes – Connectedness, Hope and optimism, Identity, Meaning and purpose, and Empowerment – which make up the CHIME framework could be amended if the narrative synthesis and validation process were repeated (Zimmer, 2006). Second, the framework should not be seen as definitive. As recovery is an individual and dynamic process, the conceptual framework is not intended to be a rigid definition of what recovery ‘is’, but rather a resource to inform future research and clinical practice. The individual nature of recovery was highlighted in the present study by the three new themes arising from the inductive analysis. Third, although as noted, triangulation can be seen as a strength of the study, others have argued that using member checking and triangulation as a form of validation is not without problems (Murphy et al., 1998). Specifically, we would expect different understanding of the same phenomenon, especially as the accounts of participants in the focus groups may be formed for different reasons compared to the accounts formed by researchers. However, within this study, we have used multiple types of triangulation in addition to participant triangulation as detailed above. Finally, one limitation concerns the analysis, in which the same reviewers conducted the inductive and deductive analysis concurrently. The deductive framework may have influenced the inductive analysis, such that differences were incorporated into the existing categories of the framework, instead of being seen as new categories in their own right. To minimise this bias, the reviews independently coded the transcripts and kept reflective notes about the process.
Clinical implications
One of the problems identified with recovery in clinical practice is the lack of clarity regarding definition (Le Boutillier et al., 2011; Meehan et al., 2008; Piat and Lal, 2012), with Braslow arguing that recovery has become a ‘melange of beliefs and values’ (Braslow, 2013). The conceptual framework validated in this study offers one solution to this problem as it provides a useable and valid definition of recovery for use within research and practice.
Confusion surrounding the meaning of recovery has also raised concerns that recovery has been co-opted by the system (Gordon, 2013; Roberts and Hollins, 2007). This increased scepticism around recovery is common to both staff and consumers, where concerns such as recovery being the ‘next new thing’ (Davidson et al., 2006), tokenism instead of genuine partnership and user involvement (El Enany et al., 2013), and a drive towards autonomy resulting in a withdrawal of support (Vandekinderen et al., 2012) have been expressed. Consistent with these concerns, scepticism surrounding recovery was expressed by focus group participants and suggests the need to modify the framework to include this as a new second- or third-order category. People not only had concerns about the terminology used, but many participants also saw recovery as the way the system could cope with the increased demands whilst in an economic climate of cut-backs and financial savings. This view is echoed within the literature, where the concern that recovery will be misused as a post-hoc justification for reducing and cutting services has been voiced (Fernando, 2010; Roberts and Hollins, 2007). This increased scepticism of recovery also raises the question of whether such concerns are a by-product of individuals coming into contact with mental health services that are not currently recovery focused, such that staff and system-level concerns about recovery are communicated to consumers.
Research implications
The use of systematic reviews to design interventions and as tools for decision-making has increased exponentially in the last decade, leading to concerns that what is reported in the literature might not always be applicable and transferrable to the population and context under investigation (Burgess et al., 2011; Meehan et al., 2008). Although this study supports the use of concepts developed on the basis of systematic reviews, the identified differences in emphasis highlight the importance of conducting qualitative work with the population of interest to ensure that the concepts are valid and of relevance.
Another research implication is that in addition to the lack of conceptual clarity, the recovery literature has been criticised for its lack of evidence base (Davidson et al., 2006). Proponents of evidence-based medicine argue for concepts that are ‘objectively measureable’ (McCranie, 2011). Recovery and evidence-based medicine can be seen as creating a tension between the need to develop objective empirical evidence comprising meta-analytic aggregation of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the individualised and unique nature of personal recovery. The conceptual framework offers a solution to this tension by providing a useable basis for further empirical work and research to build upon. It provides a framework to guide the development of an evidence base by identifying target areas for intervention and highlights potential outcomes that trials could focus upon and measure. Currently, the conceptual framework of recovery is being used as the theoretical foundation for two large-scale studies: the REFOCUS cluster RCT within two mental health trusts in England (Slade et al., 2011) and within the Principles Unite Local Services Assisting Recovery (PULSAR) recovery project which has received funding from the Victoria Government to test a practical approach to providing recovery-orientated mental health services (Victorian Government Health Information, 2013).
Conclusion
This study demonstrated that an existing conceptual framework of personal recovery is both valid and relevant for use within clinical practice and research. Despite differences in the participants, particularly in the stages of recovery, the five main recovery processes of the conceptual framework remain relevant to mental health consumers. However, the areas of difference highlighted and the subsequent modifications to the framework, may suggest that conceptualisations of recovery in the literature are primarily based on the experiences of consumers who are further along their recovery journeys than those currently using services. Consequently, some aspects of the earlier stages of recovery, including the need for practical support, have been under-represented in the recovery literature at present. Furthermore, this study highlights the importance of conducting initial qualitative work to ensure the relevance of any existing concepts to the context and individuals under investigation.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Yan Weaver for his help.
Funding
This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0707-10040), and in relation to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.