##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##
Downloads
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Indicators of recovery outcomes are selected by mental health nurses beginning with a commitment to a holistic and client-centered view of recovery. The purpose of the review aimed to bring together the results of previous systematic reviews on instruments for assessing the recovery of people with serious mental illnesses.
Methods: A systematic literature review was carried out using the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute for systematic reviews. A literature search using The ScienceDirect, SpringerLink electronic databases, Google Scholar, and a Google search engine was used. Searching in literature published between January 2010 and December 2020, supplemented by reference tracking and Internet searches. The authors independently reviewed all titles, assessed articles’ eligibility for inclusion, determined a methodological quality score for each included article and extracted relevant data.
Results: Out of 19,724 articles related to the title for potential inclusion in this review, four met the inclusion criteria. The eligibility tools appear to have been studied in various settings and with varied types of patients but are still congruent with SIM. Most importantly, the reviews identified several methodological limitations across the original studies. The lack of a ‘gold standard. This review found twenty-two dimensions in personal recovery instruments and twenty-one in mental health services orientation. Also, many recovery assessment tools are available for the serious mental illness population. However, there is limited evidence about their psychometric properties.
Conclusion: Three instruments were found that could measure the personal recovery of people with serious mental illnesses. Those instruments' psychometric properties and cultural adaptation are recommended for further studies.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
2. Jans, L., Kraus, L. E., & Stoddard, S. (2004). Chartbook on mental health and disability: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
3. aRamon, S., Healy, B., & Renouf, N. Recovery from mental illness as an emergent concept and practice in Australia and the UK. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 53(2), 108-122. (2007); bRoe, J., Joseph, S., & Middleton, H. Symbolic interaction: A theoretical approach to understanding stigma and recovery. Mental Health Review Journal. (2010)
4. Hinshaw, A. S., & Heinrich, J. Changing health science policy: The establishment of the National Institute of Nursing Research at the National Institutes of Health. Shaping health policy through nursing research, 121-137. (2011)
5. aDeegan, P. E. Recovery: The lived experience of rehabilitation. Psychosocial rehabilitation journal, 11(4), 11. (1988); bDeegan, P. Recovery as a journey of the heart. Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 19(3), 91. (1996); cAnthony, W. A. Recovery from mental illness: the guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosocial rehabilitation journal, 16(4), 11. (1993)
6. Institute, T. J. B. (2017). Critical Appraisal Tools. Retrieved 2 February, 2020, from https://joannabriggs.org/ebp/critical_appraisal_tools.
7. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Physical therapy, 89(9), 873-880. (2009)
8. Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 7(1), 1-7. (2007)
9. Williams, J., Leamy, M., Bird, V., et al. Measures of the recovery orientation of mental health services: systematic review. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 47(11), 1827-1835. (2012)
10. Sklar, M., Groessl, E. J., O'Connell, M., Davidson, L., & Aarons, G. A. Instruments for measuring mental health recovery: a systematic review. Clinical psychology review, 33(8), 1082-1095. (2013)
11. Shanks, V., Williams, J., Leamy, M., Bird, V. J., Le Boutillier, C., & Slade, M. Measures of personal recovery: a systematic review. Psychiatric Services, 64(10), 974-980. (2013)
12. Moreno, M. C., & Uriarte, J. J. How is evaluated mental health recovery?: a systematic review. Actas Esp Psiquiatr, 47(1), 23-32. (2019)
13. Stevens Manser, S., Chubinsky, K., & Kuhn, W. Recovery outcome measures to advance recovery oriented systems of care. Texas Institute for Excellence in Mental Health, School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin. (2018)
14. aGiffort, D., Schmook, A., Woody, C., Vollendorf, C., & Gervain, M. Construction of a scale to measure consumer recovery. Springfield, IL: Illinois Office of Mental Health, 10, 15487760500339360. (1995); bHancock, N., Scanlan, J. N., Honey, A., Bundy, A. C., & O’Shea, K. Recovery assessment scale–domains and stages (RAS-DS): its feasibility and outcome measurement capacity. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(7), 624-633. (2015)
15. Abuse, S. Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA’s working definition of recovery. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2012)
16. Drapalski, A. L., Medoff, D., Dixon, L., & Bellack, A. The reliability and validity of the Maryland assessment of recovery in serious mental illness scale. Psychiatry Research, 239, 259-264. (2016)
17. Young, S., & Bullock, W. Illness management and recovery and the role of the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM) in outcomes research. Ohio Department of Mental Health, Ohio Coordinating Center for Excellence for Illness and Recovery. (2003)