Recovery and serious mental illness: a review of current clinical and research paradigms and future directions.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recovery from serious mental illness has historically not been considered a likely or even possible outcome. However, a range of evidence suggests the courses of SMI are heterogeneous with recovery being the most likely outcome. One barrier to studying recovery in SMI is that recovery has been operationalized in divergent and seemingly incompatible ways: as an objective outcome versus a subjective process. Areas covered: This paper offers a review of recovery as a subjective process and recovery as an objective outcome; contrasts methodologies utilized by each approach to assess recovery; reports rates and correlates of recovery; and explores the relationship between objective and subjective forms of recovery. Expert commentary: There are two commonalities of approaching recovery as a subjective process and an objective outcome: (i) the need to make meaning out of one's experiences to engage in either type of recovery and (ii) there exist many threats to engaging in meaning making that may impact the likelihood of moving toward recovery. We offer four clinical implications that stem from these two commonalities within a divided approach to the concept of recovery from SMI.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Our policy assessment identified bio-social vulnerabilities and structural health system barriers leading to environmental risk factors such as social conflicts, shortfall of psychosocial treatments, stigma and societal disadvantages that contribute to the overall problem.
“Lastly, our policy assessment identified bio-social vulnerabilities and structural (health) system barriers that lead to environmental risk factors such as social conflicts (interpersonal), a general shortfall of psychosocial treatments (organizational), stigma and societal disadvantages (society) that all seem to additionally contribute to our overall problem (105–107).”
From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [107]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 140 · Cited by 195
- Authors
- Leonhardt, B. L., Huling, K., Hamm, J. A., Roe, D., Hasson-Ohayon, I., McLeod, H. J., & Lysaker, P. H.
- Affiliations
- Eskenazi Health (US)
- University of Indianapolis (US)
- University of Haifa (IL)
- Department of Psychology, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Leonhardt, Bethany L.
- Venue
- Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-09-15
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1117-1130
- ISSN
- 1473-7175 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-8360
- OpenAlex
- W2752689874
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 140
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 19
- FWCI
- 2.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Keywords
- mental health recovery, severe mental illness, subjective recovery, meaning-making, recovery assessment
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Humans, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
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