CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 344Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Psychiatry

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relational recovery: beyond individualism in the recovery approach

Price-Robertson, Rhys, Obradovic, Angela, Morgan, Brad·2017·Advances in Mental Health
DOI 10.1080/18387357.2016.1243014
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: While the recovery approach in mental health currently enjoys immense support, it is not without its critics. The most persistent criticisms focus on the individualism underpinning many conceptualisations of recovery. In this paper, we outline the shortcomings of individualistic approaches to recovery, and explore the alternative notion of relational recovery.Method: We begin this article by reviewing recent research and theory that critiques individualistic approaches to recovery. We then draw together disparate bodies of research that view recovery as an inherently social process.Results: Our reading of the literature suggests that although many models of recovery recognise relationships or connectedness as a component of the recovery process, an overemphasis on the ‘inner’, subjective experiences of people with a lived experience of mental ill-health largely obscures the interpersonal contexts of recovery. Interpersonal relationships can more accurately be seen as suffusing all aspects of recovery, including experiences such as hope, identity and empowerment.Discussion: We conclude by arguing that the way forward for mental health systems lies in developing, promoting and implementing approaches that properly acknowledge the irreducibly relational nature of recovery.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/18387357.2016.1243014

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Jacobs L., 2009, Cocreating the field: Intention and practice in the age of complexity, 45
  2. Jacobson N., 2010, Recovery through the lens of cultural diversity
  3. Orange D., 2010, Persons in context: The challenge of individuality in theory and practice, 43
  4. Price-Robertson R., 2016, Supporting recovery in families affected by parental mental illness (CFCA practitioner resource)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–344 of 344

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Price-Robertson, R., Obradovic, A., & Morgan, B.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Emerging Minds, North Adelaide, SA, Australia
Corresponding author
Price-Robertson, Rhys
ORCID
Price-Robertson, Rhys
Venue
Advances in Mental Health
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2016-10-13
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
108-120
ISSN
  • 1446-7984 (ISSN-L)
  • 1838-7357
  • 1837-4905
DOI
10.1080/18387357.2016.1243014
OpenAlex
W2531276615
Cited by
344
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8
FWCI
27.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Advances in Mental Health (publishedVersion)
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 approach, individualism, interpersonal relationships, social connectedness, mental illness, hope, identity, empowerment, lived experience, mental health system

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