Developing a consensus of recovery from suicidal ideations and behaviours: A Delphi study with experts by experience
Open accessAbstract
Background: Understanding recovery in mental health has received significant attention and consequently, recovery has been incorporated into health policy across many countries in the Global North. In comparison, the concept of ‘recovery’ from suicidal thoughts and behaviours has received little attention. However, the few studies in this area appear to suggest that recovery is a complex and an idiosyncratic process with many contributing factors. This can present a challenge for clinicians and services seeking to become more recovery focused. Thus, it seems of importance to develop a consensus on how recovery from suicidal thoughts and behaviours is conceptualised. Aim: The study aimed to use the Delphi design to establish a consensus of how recovery is defined by those with lived experience of suicidal thoughts and behaviours. The Delphi method draws on the expertise of a panel, often involving clinicians, researchers and lived experience experts to develop consensus over a topic by inviting them to rate the importance of, often a series of statements to a given topic area. Method: Lived experience experts were asked to complete two rounds of questionnaires distributed online to capture their views on recovery. Results: A total of 196 individuals gave their views on the first round of the study and 97 gave their views on the second round. A final list of 110 statements was developed that 80% or more of participants defined as essential or important. Statements covered items that were important in defining, facilitation and hindering the process of recovery. Conclusion: Findings are consistent with the wider literature that suggests that recovery is an idiosyncratic process, but with many commonly shared features. Here we also show that a comprehensive definition of recovery must include factors that hinder the process of recovery. Implications and recommendations for practice, policy development and future research are discussed.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Both studies describe the recovery process as unique to each individual and emphasize the importance of service users being able to define recovery for themselves rather than being pressured to meet standards set by services.
“Both studies describe the recovery process as unique to each individual and emphasize the importance of service users being able to define recovery for themselves rather than being pressured to meet standards set by services.”
From Suicide attempt survivors’ recovery-related agency in the relational context of services: a qualitative analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]
Sokol et al. presented a theoretical model of recovery from a suicidal episode based on a literature review, and Ropaj et al. a Delphi consensus on what recovery from suicidal behavior entails from the perspective of those with lived experience.
“Recently, Sokol et al. [18] presented a theoretical model of recovery from a suicidal episode based on a literature review, and Ropaj et al. [19] a Delphi consensus on what recovery from suicidal behavior entails from the perspective of those with lived experience.”
From Suicide attempt survivors’ recovery-related agency in the relational context of services: a qualitative analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]
The participants' accounts illustrated the highly idiosyncratic, person-specific nature of recovery goals and processes described by models of personal recovery from suicidality.
“The participants’ accounts also illustrated the highly idiosynchratic, i.e., person-specific, nature of recovery goals and processes that is described by models of personal recovery from suicidality [18, 19].”
From Suicide attempt survivors’ recovery-related agency in the relational context of services: a qualitative analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]
An understanding of recovery as co-created is in line with both the self-determination theory and recovery models of suicidality.
“An understanding of recovery as co-created is in line with both the SDT [10, 12] and recovery models of suicidality [18, 19].”
From Suicide attempt survivors’ recovery-related agency in the relational context of services: a qualitative analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]
The empirical results demonstrate how offering interactions and resources that facilitate suicidal individuals' recovery-related intentionality and power requires taking an interest in what recovery goals and tasks the person finds relevant.
“Further, the empirical results demonstrate how offering interactions and resources that facilitate suicidal individuals’ recovery-related intentionality and power requires taking an interest in what recovery goals and tasks the person finds relevant, cf [19].”
From Suicide attempt survivors’ recovery-related agency in the relational context of services: a qualitative analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [19]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 66 · Cited by 7
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [71]Iqbal S, Pipon-Young L. The Delphi method. Methods. 2009; 22(7): 598– 601. doi: 10.51936/fcfm6982 · DOI
- Authors
- Ropaj, E., Haddock, G., & Pratt, D.
- Affiliations
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Ropaj, Esmira
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2023-09-20
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e0291377
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10511083
- OpenAlex
- W4386884078
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2
- FWCI
- 2.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR201393)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- recovery, suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, lived experience, expert by experience, recovery-oriented care, barriers to recovery, mental health policy
- MeSH terms
- Delphi Technique, Health Policy, Humans, Mental Health, Consensus, Suicidal Ideation
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
