CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Mental Health and Patient InvolvementSchizophrenia research and treatmentPsychiatric care and mental health services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recovery in psychosis from a service user perspective: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of current qualitative evidence.

Wood, L., Alsawy, S.·2018·Community Mental Health Journal
DOI 10.1007/s10597-017-0185-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There is a growing number of qualitative accounts regarding recovery from psychosis from a service user perspective. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of these qualitative accounts. A thematic synthesis was utilised to synthesise and analyse seventeen studies included in the review. Studies were included if they used a qualitative methodology to explore service users' experiences of recovery from psychosis as a primary research question. All included studies were subjected to a quality assessment. The analysis outlined three subordinate themes: the recovery journey, facilitators of recovery (e.g. faith and spirituality, personal agency and hope), and barriers to recovery (e.g. stigma and discrimination, negative effects of mental health services and medication). Recovery is an idiosyncratic process but includes key components which are important to people who experience psychosis. These should be explored within clinical practice.

Overview

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 · 10.1007/s10597-017-0185-9

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Boardman, J., Roberts, G.. Risk (2014). Safety and recovery. London: Centre for Mental Health.
  2. British Psychological Society. (2011). Good practice guidelines on the use of psychological formulation. London: British Psychological Society.
  3. HM Government. (2011). No health without mental health: A cross-government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages. London: HMSO.
  4. Mental Health Foundation. (2007). The fundamental facts: The latest facts and figures on mental health. London: Mental Health Foundation.
  5. Mitchell, S. (2011). Spiritual aspects of psychosis and recovery. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.
  6. NICE. (2014). Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: Treatment and management. London: National Institute of Clinical Excellence.
  7. Northumberland TaWNT. (2012). Ratinale for using a 5 P’s formulation approach. Northumberland: Tyne and Wear NHS Trust.
  8. Roberts, G., & Wolfson, P. (2006). New directions in rehabilitation: Learning from the recovery movement. In G. Roberts, S. Davenport, F. Holloway & T. Tattan (Eds.), Enabling recovery: Principals and practice of psychiatric rehabilitation (pp. 18–37). London: Gaskell.
  9. Royal College of Psychiatrists. (2012) The holistic approach to psychosis. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists.
  10. Time to Change. (2010). Children and young people’s programme development. London: Rethink Mental Illness.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–116 of 116

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wood, L., & Alsawy, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Essex (GB)
  • Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Wood, L.
ORCID
Venue
Community Mental Health Journal
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-11-29
Volume
54
Issue
6
Pages
793-804
ISSN
  • 0010-3853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2789
DOI
10.1007/s10597-017-0185-9
OpenAlex
W2770744071
Cited by
116
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (unspecified)
Locations
  • Community Mental Health Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
psychosis, recovery, service user perspectives, lived experience, recovery journey, faith and spirituality, individual agency, hope, stigma and discrimination, mental health services, antipsychotic drugs, barriers to recovery
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Psychotic Disorders, Religion and Psychology, Self Concept, Social Support, Patient Satisfaction, Recovery of Function, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, Social Stigma

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