Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 481

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

What Does Recovery Mean in Practice? A Qualitative Analysis of International Recovery-Oriented Practice Guidance

Open access
Le Boutillier, Clair, Leamy, Mary, Bird, Victoria J., Davidson, Larry, Williams, Julie, Slade, Mike·2011·Psychiatric Services

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Recovery is a multifaceted concept, and the need for operationalization in practice has been identified. Although guidance on recovery-oriented practice exists, it is from disparate sources and is difficult to apply. The aims of the study were to identify the key characteristics of recovery-oriented practice guidance on the basis of current international perspectives and to develop an overarching conceptual framework to aid the translation of recovery guidance into practice. METHODS: A qualitative analysis of 30 international documents offering recovery-oriented practice guidance was conducted. Inductive, semantic-level, thematic analysis was used to identify dominant themes. Interpretive analysis was then undertaken to group the themes into practice domains. RESULTS: The guidance documents were diverse; from six countries-the United States, England, Scotland, Republic of Ireland, Denmark, and New Zealand-and varied in document type, categories of guidance, and level of service user involvement in guidance development. The emerging conceptual framework consists of 16 dominant themes, grouped into four practice domains: promoting citizenship, organizational commitment, supporting personally defined recovery, and working relationship. CONCLUSIONS: A key challenge for mental health services is the lack of clarity about what constitutes recovery-oriented practice. The conceptual framework contributes to this knowledge gap and provides a synthesis of recovery-oriented practice guidance.

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 · 10.1176/appi.ps.001312011

Cites

44 of 44 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

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

Show all 44 references

Cited by

See all 481

Metadata

Authors
Le Boutillier, C., Leamy, M., Bird, V. J., Davidson, L., Williams, J., & Slade, M.
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Published
2011-12
Volume
62
Issue
12
Pages
1470-1476
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
OpenAlex
W1985947699
Cited by
481
References
44
FWCI
43.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What Does Recovery Mean in Practice? A Qualitative Analysis of International Recovery-Oriented Practice Guidance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/appi.ps.001312011
The paper
Le Boutillier, C., Leamy, M., Bird, V. J., Davidson, L., Williams, J., & Slade, M. (2011). What Does Recovery Mean in Practice? A Qualitative Analysis of International Recovery-Oriented Practice Guidance. Psychiatric Services. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.001312011

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.