CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 296Mental Health and Patient InvolvementDisability Rights and RepresentationMental Health and Psychiatry

Rethinking social recovery in schizophrenia: what a capabilities approach might offer

Open access
Hopper, Kim·2007·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.012PMC PMC2018655
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Resurgent hopes for recovery from schizophrenia in the late 1980s had less to do with fresh empirical evidence than with focused political agitation. Recovery's promise was transformative: reworking traditional power relationships, conferring distinctive expertise on service users, rewriting the mandate of public mental health systems. Its institutional imprint has been considerably weaker. This article takes sympathetic measure of that outcome and provides an alternative framework for what recovery might mean, one drawn from disability studies and Sen's capabilities approach. By re-enfranchising agency, redressing material and symbolic disadvantage, raising the bar on fundamental entitlements and claiming institutional support for complex competencies, a capabilities approach could convert flaccid doctrine into useful guidelines and tools for public mental health.

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 · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.012

Cites

68 of 68 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

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Albrecht GL, Seelman KD, Bury M. Handbook of disabilities studies. Sage; Thousand Oaks: 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alkire S. Valuing freedoms. Oxford; New York: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  3. Blanch AK, Fisher D, Tucker W, Walsh D, Chassman J. Consumer-practitioners and psychiatrists share insights about recovery and coping. Disability Studies Quarterly. 1993;13:17–20. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chamberlin J. On our own. McGraw-Hill; New York: 1979. [Google Scholar]
  5. Clay S. Conference Presentation: The Work of Recovery: Implications for Psychiatry and Research; Ossining, New York. October 17-18, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fisher DB. The DMH Core Curriculum: Consumer Empowerment and Recovery, Part I. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Mental Health; Boston: 1993. Towards a positive culture of healing. [Google Scholar]
  7. Floersch JE. Meds, money, and manners. Columbia University Press; New York: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  8. Hinsie LE. Schizophrenia (dementia praecox) Williams and Wilkins; Baltimore: 1931. Criticism of treatment and recovery in schizophrenia. Proceedings of the Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease for 1928; pp. 211–223. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hogan MF. Transmittal letter to the President, Interim report of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. 2002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hopper K. Redistribution and its discontents. Human Organization. 2006;65:218–226. [Google Scholar]
  11. Nussbaum MC, Sen A, editors. Quality of life. Oxford University Press; New York: 1993. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ralph RO. Review of recovery literature: A synthesis of a sample of recovery literature. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors and the National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rowe M. Crossing the border. University of California Press; Berkeley: 1999. [Google Scholar]
  14. Scull A. Decarceration. Prentice Hall; Englewood Cliffs: 1976. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sen AK. Tanner lectures on human values. University of Utah Press; Salt Lake City: 1980. Equality of what? [Google Scholar]
  16. Sen A. Capabilities, lists, and public reason. Feminist Economics. 2004;10(3):77–80. [Google Scholar]
  17. Weir M. Politics and jobs. Princeton University Press; Princeton: 1992. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hopper, K.
Affiliations
Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research (US)
Corresponding author
Hopper, Kim
ORCID
Hopper, Kim
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-09
Volume
65
Issue
5
Pages
868-879
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.04.012
PMC
PMC2018655
OpenAlex
W2096245683
Cited by
296
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 19
FWCI
26.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH051359, MH 51359, R01MH065247, MH065247)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
schizophrenia, social recovery, capability approach, Amartya Sen, disability studies, agency, service user empowerment, public mental health, mental health policy
MeSH terms
Anthropology, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Mental Health Services, Schizophrenia, United States, Health Care Reform

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