Search results

The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of shared decision making (SDM) as one component of recovery-oriented care.

This paper is conceptual and reviews the literature relevant to recovery-oriented care, person-centered recovery planning (PCRP), and SDM.

To the degree to which SDM offers tools for sharing useful information about treatment options with service users and family members or other loved ones, it can be considered a valuable addition to the recovery-oriented armamentarium. It is important to emphasize, though, that recovery-oriented practice has a broader focus on the person’s overall life in the community and is not limited to formal treatments or other professionally delivered interventions. Within the more holistic context of recovery, SDM regarding such interventions is only one tool among many, which needs to be integrated within an overall PCRP process. More emphasis is given within the recovery-oriented care to activating and equipping persons for exercising self-care and for pursuing a life they have reason to value, and the nature of the relationships required to promote such processes will be identified. In describing the nature of these relationships, it will become evident that decision making is only one of many processes that need to be shared between persons in recovery and those who accept responsibility for promoting and supporting that person’s recovery.

By viewing SDM within the context of recovery, this paper provides a framework that can assist in the implementation of SDM in routine mental health care.

The purpose of this paper is to explore and describe experiences of recovery among people with co-occurring mental health and substance use conditions (co-occurring conditions) in a rural community in Norway.

In-depth individual interviews with eight persons with co-occurring conditions were conducted, audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using a phenomenological approach. This study is part of a research project investigating recovery orientation of services in a Norwegian district.

The analysis yielded four dimensions of recovery: feeling useful and accepted; coming to love oneself; mastering life; and emerging as a person. Insecure and inadequate housing and limited solutions to financial problems were described as major obstacles to recovery.

Further research into the facilitation of recovery as defined by persons with concurrent disorders is needed, particularly regarding the facilitation of community participation.

This study supports an increased focus on societal and community factors in promoting recovery for persons with co-occurring conditions, as well as service designs that allow for an integration of social services and health care, and for collaboration among services.

The results suggest that the community can aid recovery by accepting persons with co-occurring conditions as fellow citizens and welcoming their contributions.

The paper provides an enhanced understanding of how persons with co-occurring conditions may experience recovery.

The purpose of this paper is to explore, describe and interpret two research questions: How do persons with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems, living in supportive housing, experience belonging? How do residential support staff experience promoting a sense of belonging for persons with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems, living in a supportive housing?

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with five persons with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems living in supportive housing in a Norwegian district. In addition, one semi-structured focus group was conducted with nine residential support staff. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Analysis resulted in three main themes: “I do not go to sleep in my pajamas”, “Do I have a choice?” and “Be kind to each other”.

More research on how inclusive practices that are commonly described in guidelines actually affect the experience of residents and residential support staff is needed.

Practices that incorporate a communal and contextual understanding when assigning supportive housing are warranted.

By paying attention to the components of social recovery, this paper provides a nuanced understanding of how persons with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems, living in supportive housing, experience belonging. In addition, residential support staffs’ experiences with promoting a sense of belonging for this group are explored.

While serious mental illness (SMI) and substance use disorders (SUD) are common, less research has focused on causal beliefs across conditions. This is an important question when trying to understand the experience of dual diagnosis. The purpose of this paper is to examine how three factors representing causal beliefs (biogenetic, psychosocial or childhood adversity) differ by SMI and SUD. This study also examined how causal beliefs were associated with overall, process and outcome beliefs about recovery.

Using Mechanical Turks online panel, 195 research participants from the general public completed measures of recovery – overall, outcome and process – for SMI and SUD. Participants also completed the Causal Beliefs Scale yielding three causal factors for SMI and separately for SUD: biogenetic, psychosocial and childhood adversity.

Results indicated participants endorsed biogenetic cause more for SMI and SUD. Moreover, research participants endorsed biogenetic causes more than the other two for SMI. Results also showed the psychosocial cause was positively associated with recovery for SMI. Biogenetic causes were not. Almost none of the causal indicators was significantly associated with recovery for SUD.

Implications of these findings for future research and public efforts to enhance attitudes about recovery are discussed.

As peer support services have become increasingly used in mental health settings as a recovery-oriented practice, so has the body of published research on this approach to care. The purpose of this paper is to provide an update on the current evidence base for peer support for adults with mental illness in two domains: mental health and recovery, and physical health and wellness.

To provide a robust, non-redundant, and up-to-date review, first the authors searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Second, the authors found individual studies not included in any of the reviews.

Peer services are generally equally effective to services provided by non-peer paraprofessionals on traditional clinical outcomes. Although some studies found peer services to be effective at reducing hospitalization rates and symptom severity, as a whole, the current evidence base is confounded by heterogeneity in programmatic characteristics and methodological shortcomings. On the other hand, the evidence is stronger for peer support services having more of a positive impact on levels of hope, empowerment, and quality of life.

In addition to the need for further high-quality research on peer support in mental and physical health domains, the authors also question whether measures of hope, empowerment, and integration into the community are more relevant to recovery than traditional clinical outcomes.

This paper provides an original, robust, and up-to-date review of the evidence for peer services.

The co-occurrence of mental health and substance use problems is prevalent, and has been problematic both in terms of its complexity for the person and of the challenges it poses to health care practitioners. Recovery in co-occurring mental health and substance use problems is viewed as with multiple challenges embedded in it. As most of the existing literature on recovery tends to treat recovery in mental health and substance use problems separately, it is critical to assess the nature of our current understanding of what has been described as “complex” or “dual” recovery. The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss what persons with co-occurring mental health and substance use problems describe as facilitators and barriers in their recovery process as revealed in the literature.

The method used for this study was a small-scale review of the literature gleaned from a wider general view. Searches were conducted in CINAHL, Psych info, Medline, Embase, SweMed+, and NORART.

Three overarching themes were identified as facilitators of dual recovery: first, meaningful everyday life; second, focus on strengths and future orientation; and third, re-establishing a social life and supportive relationships. Two overarching themes were identified as barriers to dual recovery: first, lack of tailored help and second, complex systems and uncoordinated services.

The recovery literature mostly focuses on recovery in mental health and substance use problems separately, with less attention being paid in the first-person literature to what helps and what hinders dual recovery.

Despite the high prevalence of co-occurring disorders and the need for systems of care to integrate mental health and addiction services, integration remains a challenge. The purpose of this paper is to address this challenge by focussing on shared processes of recovery.

After reviewing commonalities between mental health and substance use recovery, integration of treatment with recovery supports under the rubric of a “recovery-oriented system of care” is described. Philadelphia's Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services is then used as an example to illustrate strategies for achieving two forms of integration: mental health and addiction and treatment and recovery supports.

Viewed through the lens of people with mental health and addiction challenges, the services and supports that promote recovery are very similar. One of the common themes that emerged was the need for these services to go beyond helping people manage their symptoms or achieve abstinence, to also helping them to rebuild their lives in their communities. In addition to co-location and increased collaboration, service providers must possess common values, a consistent approach, and a shared vision for the people they serve.

Systems need to find innovative and effective ways to integrate recovery support services with treatment and other interventions, hopefully transforming existing services in the process.

In the process of developing a truly integrated behavioral health system, a shared vision across all sectors of the system must shift away from the field's historical focus on illness and problems to a new focus on strengths and possibilities.

Hope is regarded as central to recovery processes. The phenomenon along with its implications for research and practice has, however, gained limited attention within the fields of mental health and substance use. The purpose of this paper is to explore how hope, and what may inspire it, is described within the literature by persons experiencing co-occurring mental health and substance use problems.

The method chosen when conducting this literature review was a scoping study. This allows for a broad approach, aiming to examine research activity and identifying potential gaps within existing literature. Searches were conducted in EMBASE Ovid, PsychINFO Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid, CINAHL Ebsco, SveMed+ and Brithish Nursing Index.

The authors included five articles and one book. None of these presented first-hand experiences of hope and there appears to be a gap in the literature. All included material underlined the importance of the phenomenon to those experiencing co-occurring mental health and substance use problems.

Hope seems as important to people experiencing co-occurring problems as to anyone else. There appears to be a need for further research on how persons experiencing co-occurring problems perceive hope and what may inspire it. Hope and what people hope for take many forms and can arise unexpectedly. Practitioners need to take in account the diversity of the phenomenon and find ways of inspiring hope in collaboration with those in need of support.

Serious and persistent mental illness has posed a significant social problem for a majority of cultures across most historical periods. Most recently in the United States, the aftermath of the deinstitutionalization policies of the 1950–1970s has resulted in many individuals who in the past might have spent the majority of their adult lives living in hospitals roaming city streets homeless, impoverished, and vulnerable to victimization or to being arrested for minor offenses. This paper reviews the changes both in the population of individuals with serious mental illness and in the systems that care for them over the last 25 years, and suggests that a “Tower of Babel” scenario has resulted inadvertently from the shift from hospital to community care. Following the dissolution of the monolithic hospitals (i.e. Towers of Babel), mental health providers have been dispersed among a myriad of community agencies, each with its own vision and standards of community care. Without a shared map to guide their work, community systems have become characterized by disarray, paralysis, and a lack of integration and coordination of care for a population of individuals who typically require more than one service from more than one provider at any given time. To address these issues, we offer a core set of “principles of care” developed by one local service system in an attempt to (re-)constitute a common map for their shared territory. We closed with a discussion of the issues that remain unresolved despite this collaborative process, and with suggestions for future directions to explore.

This article describes a quality assurance effort aimed at defining the characteristics of the patient population of the Connecticut Mental Health Center, a state‐funded agency that provides comprehensive clinical and rehabilitative services to persons with mental illness. Also described is how this information guided management decisions in both caseload distribution and clinical service development. This “Patient Profile Project” was informed by research principles which view evaluation as continual, rather than terminal activity that involves key stakeholders from all levels within the mental health system of care and makes maximum use of data in ongoing performance improvement initiatives. The service‐need index that the project produced represents our first efforts to accurately capture service need and use it in clinical decision making. This review of the Connecticut Mental Health Center Patient Profile Project illustrates the utility of a continuous evaluation system in promoting improvements in a large mental health treatment system.