Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
One or Many Recoveries? Recoveries in the Plural for a Better Understanding of One's Healing Journey.
СтатьяОбзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Faccio Elena, Rocelli Michele, Bitetti Lia, Salamina Giuseppe, Brunelli Susanna, Mangione Federica, Aquili Ludovica
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Since the 60s, the recovery-oriented approach has greatly influenced mental health policy and practice, and much research has been devoted to exploring it. In the face of a generic definition of the 'recovery' construct, to which many articles refer, a closer examination of the literature reveals a plurality of theories and ways about how changes related to the recovery occur and how to evaluate them.
AIMS: This narrative review explores the different definitions of recovery available in the literature, by investigating the adjectives that qualify it and the theoretical construct the adjective refers to.
METHOD: From the online databases PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and PsycINFO, 43 articles were selected for the review.
RESULTS: Seven definitions of recovery emerged, each supported by specific theoretical perspectives: clinical, personal, narrative, social, family, cultural and relational recovery. The adjectives refer to theoretical frameworks often very distant from each other and in epistemological competition; nevertheless, many papers assume a reconcilability and possible integration. The authors critically discuss the advantages and risks of considering such different constructs as complementary.
CONCLUSIONS: Keeping theoretical descriptions and models of healing open and plural means enabling mental health practitioners not to monologise discourses of change by imposing their point of view on users. It means supporting users to authentically seek their healing pathways without conforming to clinicians' expectations. It also means abandoning misleading and naive simplifications and strictly using the appropriate terms relevant to the specific healing construct that researchers refer to from time to time. This is particularly important when it comes to the relational component, which seems to be receiving more and more attention in the literature, and about which there is more confusion.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The study involved two experts by experience, or peer support specialists, in a more than active role as components of the research team. They participated equally with the other team members in all phases of the work: the design and conduct of the study, the discussion of findings and advice about implications and dissemination.
AIMS: This narrative review explores the different definitions of recovery available in the literature, by investigating the adjectives that qualify it and the theoretical construct the adjective refers to.
METHOD: From the online databases PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and PsycINFO, 43 articles were selected for the review.
RESULTS: Seven definitions of recovery emerged, each supported by specific theoretical perspectives: clinical, personal, narrative, social, family, cultural and relational recovery. The adjectives refer to theoretical frameworks often very distant from each other and in epistemological competition; nevertheless, many papers assume a reconcilability and possible integration. The authors critically discuss the advantages and risks of considering such different constructs as complementary.
CONCLUSIONS: Keeping theoretical descriptions and models of healing open and plural means enabling mental health practitioners not to monologise discourses of change by imposing their point of view on users. It means supporting users to authentically seek their healing pathways without conforming to clinicians' expectations. It also means abandoning misleading and naive simplifications and strictly using the appropriate terms relevant to the specific healing construct that researchers refer to from time to time. This is particularly important when it comes to the relational component, which seems to be receiving more and more attention in the literature, and about which there is more confusion.
PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The study involved two experts by experience, or peer support specialists, in a more than active role as components of the research team. They participated equally with the other team members in all phases of the work: the design and conduct of the study, the discussion of findings and advice about implications and dissemination.