Cited by 47Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychiatric care and mental health servicesSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Development of the REFOCUS intervention to increase mental health team support for personal recovery

Open access
Slade, Mike, Bird, Victoria, Boutillier, Clair Le, Farkas, Marianne, Grey, Barbara, Larsen, John, Leamy, Mary, Oades, Lindsay +1 more·2015·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: There is an emerging evidence base about best practice in supporting recovery. This is usually framed in relation to general principles, and specific pro-recovery interventions are lacking. Aims: To develop a theoretically based and empirically defensible new pro-recovery manualised intervention – called the REFOCUS intervention. Method: Seven systematic and two narrative reviews were undertaken. Identified evidence gaps were addressed in three qualitative studies. The findings were synthesised to produce the REFOCUS intervention, manual and model. Results: The REFOCUS intervention comprises two components: recovery-promoting relationships and working practices. Approaches to supporting relationships comprise coaching skills training for staff, developing a shared team understanding of recovery, exploring staff values, a Partnership Project with people who use the service and raising patient expectations. Working practices comprise the following: understanding values and treatment preferences; assessing strengths; and supporting goal-striving. The REFOCUS model describes the causal pathway from the REFOCUS intervention to improved recovery. Conclusions: The REFOCUS intervention is an empirically supported pro-recovery intervention for use in mental health services. It will be evaluated in a multisite cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN02507940).

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.155978

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Average INSPIRE ratings of relationships with workers among PARC service participants were higher than those reported in all three previous studies.

    “In comparison, average INSPIRE ratings of recovery-oriented support among PARC service participants were similar to previous UK findings but higher than those reported in the PULSAR trial, whereas their average INSPIRE ratings of relationships with workers were higher than those reported in all three previous studies.”

    From Consumers lived experiences and satisfaction with sub-acute mental health residential services (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Stage 3 (REFOCUS model) passage says INSPIRE has a subscale assessing relationships with workers, but gives no average ratings. The Implications section mentions PULSAR without reporting INSPIRE scores. Searches for PARC ratings and comparisons with previous studies found no passage supporting the claimed ranking. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Average INSPIRE ratings of recovery-oriented support among PARC service participants were similar to previous UK findings but higher than those reported in the PULSAR trial.

    “In comparison, average INSPIRE ratings of recovery-oriented support among PARC service participants were similar to previous UK findings but higher than those reported in the PULSAR trial, whereas their average INSPIRE ratings of relationships with workers were higher than those reported in all three previous studies.”

    From Consumers lived experiences and satisfaction with sub-acute mental health residential services (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Stage 3 (REFOCUS model) passage describes the INSPIRE support and relationship subscales but gives no participant ratings. The Implications passage describes PULSAR as an Australian study modifying the REFOCUS intervention; it reports no PULSAR ratings. Searches for PARC ratings, UK findings, and PULSAR INSPIRE scores found no comparison supporting the claim. No page numbers were provided for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. Williams J, Leamy M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, Norton S, Pesola F, et al. Development and evaluation of a measure to identify mental health service support for recovery (INSPIRE). Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2015; 50: 777-86.
  2. Slade M, Bird V, Clarke E, Le Boutillier C, McCrone P, Macpherson R, et al. Supporting recovery in patients wih psychosis using adult mental health teams (REFOCUS): a multi-site cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry 2015; 2: 503-14.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slade, M., Bird, V., Boutillier, C. L., Farkas, M., Grey, B., Larsen, J., Leamy, M., Oades, L., & Williams, J.
Affiliations
Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Slade, Mike
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2015-12
Volume
207
Issue
6
Pages
544-550
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2177919382
Cited by
47
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0707-10040, 10040)
  • King's College London
  • Medical Research Council
  • Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of London
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-0707-10040)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
personal recovery, mental health teams, patient partnership, treatment preferences, strengths-based assessment, goal pursuit, manualized intervention, mental health services
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Government Programs, United Kingdom, Humans, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Qualitative Research

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