Cited by 61Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentMental Health and Patient InvolvementSchizophrenia research and treatment

The process of recovery from bipolar I disorder: a qualitative analysis of personal accounts in relation to an integrative cognitive model.

Mansell, Warren, Powell, Seth, Pedley, Rebecca, Thomas, Nia, Jones, Sarah Amelia·2010·British Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Objectives. This study explored the process of recovery from bipolar I disorder from a phenomenological and cognitive perspective. Design. A semi‐structured interview was coded and analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Methods. Eleven individuals over the age of 30 with a history of bipolar disorder were selected on the basis of having remained free from relapse, and without hospitalization for at least 2 years, as confirmed by a diagnostic interview (Standardised Interview for DSM‐IV; SCID‐I). This arbitrary and equivocal criterion for ‘recovery’ provided an objective method of defining the sample for the study. Results. The analysis revealed two overarching themes formed from four themes each. Ambivalent approaches referred to approaches that participants felt had both positive and negative consequences: avoidance of mania, taking medication, prior illness versus current wellness, and sense of identity following diagnosis. Helpful approaches referred to approaches that were seen as universally helpful: understanding, life‐style fundamentals, social support and companionship, and social change. Conclusions. These themes were then interpreted in the light of the existing literature and an integrative cognitive model of bipolar disorder. Limitations and future research directions are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/014466509x451447

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mansell, W., Powell, S., Pedley, R., Thomas, N., & Jones, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Mansell, Warren
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-06
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
193-215
ISSN
  • 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8260
OpenAlex
W2051659988
Cited by
61
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 8
FWCI
2.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/F037449/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
bipolar I disorder, recovery, relapse prevention, personal account, ambivalence, medication adherence, social support, lifestyle, social change
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude to Health, Bipolar Disorder, Convalescence, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Middle Aged, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated

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