Cited by 949Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Psychiatry

Uses and abuses of recovery: implementing recovery-oriented practices in mental health systems

Open access
Slade, Mike, Amering, Michaela, Farkas, Marianne, Hamilton, Bridget, O'Hagan, Mary, Panther, Graham, Perkins, Rachel, Shepherd, Geoff +2 more·2014·World Psychiatry

Abstract

An understanding of recovery as a personal and subjective experience has emerged within mental health systems. This meaning of recovery now underpins mental health policy in many countries. Developing a focus on this type of recovery will involve transformation within mental health systems. Human systems do not easily transform. In this paper, we identify seven mis-uses ("abuses") of the concept of recovery: recovery is the latest model; recovery does not apply to "my" patients; services can make people recover through effective treatment; compulsory detention and treatment aid recovery; a recovery orientation means closing services; recovery is about making people independent and normal; and contributing to society happens only after the person is recovered. We then identify ten empirically-validated interventions which support recovery, by targeting key recovery processes of connectedness, hope, identity, meaning and empowerment (the CHIME framework). The ten interventions are peer support workers, advance directives, wellness recovery action planning, illness management and recovery, REFOCUS, strengths model, recovery colleges or recovery education programs, individual placement and support, supported housing, and mental health trialogues. Finally, three scientific challenges are identified: broadening cultural understandings of recovery, implementing organizational transformation, and promoting citizenship.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wps.20084

Cites

123 of 123 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 126 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Richard A, Jongbloed L, MacFarlane A. Integration of peer sup- port workers into community mental health teams. Int J Psycho- soc Rehabil 2009;14:99-110.
  2. Slade M, Amering M, Oades L. Recovery: an international per- spective. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 2008;17:128-37.
  3. Slade M. Personal recovery and mental illness: a guide for men- tal health professionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  4. Davies S, Wakely E, Morgan S et al. Mental health recovery her- oes past and present. A handbook for mental health care staff, service users and carers. Brighton: Pavilion Press, 2012.
  5. Thornicroft G. Shunned: discrimination against people with mental illness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  6. Pickett SA, Phillips H, Nobiling J. Recovery international groups for mental health consumers. Psychiatr Serv 2012;63:295.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slade, M., Amering, M., Farkas, M., Hamilton, B., O'Hagan, M., Panther, G., Perkins, R., Shepherd, G., Tse, S., & Whitley, R.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Boston University (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Education House; Wellington New Zealand
  • Redpanther Research; Auckland New Zealand
  • Centre for Mental Health (GB)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Douglas Mental Health University Institute (CA)
Venue
World Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-02
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
12-20
ISSN
1723-8617 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117775582
Cited by
949
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 23
FWCI
107.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0707-10040, 10040)
  • King's College London
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-0707-10040)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
recovery-oriented care, mental health system, CHIME framework, peer support, advance directives, Illness Management and Recovery, strengths model, recovery colleges, Individual Placement and Support, supported housing, organizational change, citizenship, compulsory detention, mental health policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review