Effectiveness of Illness Management and Recovery program on people with severe mental illnesses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) program has been established in response to the challenges faced by people with severe mental illnesses (SMIs). The program emphasizes the self-management of mental health conditions and the achievement of personally meaningful goals. However, reviews on its efficacy remain scarce, especially in recent years.

Objective

This review aimed to examine the efficacy of IMR in improving personal-recovery outcomes among people with SMIs.

Methods

A search was conducted on seven databases (CINAHL, Embase, ProQuest, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) from inception to February 2022, without limits on the dates and types of publications. Studies were included if they had examined the efficacy of IMR in one or more outcomes, investigated at least one group of participants, and been published in English. The participants were adults (at least 16 years of age) with a formal diagnosis of at least one SMI.

Results

Fourteen studies were included in this review, and eight outcomes were examined: personal recovery, global functioning, social functioning, hope, perceived social support, quality of life, substance abuse, and knowledge of mental illness. There is limited evidence on the superiority of IMR to existing treatment plans or other interventions in improving the outcomes of interest among people with SMIs. However, the low attendance rates in many included studies suggest the presence of a threshold of exposure to IMR beyond which its treatment effects could be observed. Suggestions for future IMR implementation are discussed.

Conclusions

The IMR program may serve as an alternative or complementary intervention for people with SMIs, especially with enhanced program exposure and access to resource materials.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-10-0005/.

Illness management and recovery: one-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial in Danish community mental health centers: long-term effects on clinical and personal recovery

BACKGROUND

Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based rehabilitation program for people with severe mental illness with the short-term aim of improving illness self-management and the long-term aim of helping people achieve clinical and personal recovery.

METHOD

Participants with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders were recruited from three community mental health centers in the Capital Region of Denmark and randomized to receive group-based IMR and treatment as usual or only the usual intervention. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and the one-year follow-up. Long-term outcomes were categorized according to clinical recovery (i.e., symptoms, global functioning, and hospitalization) and personal recovery (i.e., hope and personal agency). Generalized linear mixed model regression analyses were used in the intent-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 198 participants were included. No significant differences were found between the IMR and control groups in the Global Assessment of Functioning one year after the intervention, nor were there significant differences in symptoms, number of hospital admissions, emergency room visits, or outpatient treatment.

CONCLUSION

The present IMR trial showed no significant effect on clinical and personal recovery at the one-year follow-up. Together with the results of other IMR studies, the present study indicates that the effect of IMR on symptom severity is unclear, which raises questions regarding the impact of IMR on functioning. Additionally, IMR did not affect personal recovery. Although more research is needed, the results indicate that the development of other interventions should be considered to help people with severe mental illness achieve a better level of functioning and personal recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01361698 ).

Illness management and recovery program for mental health problems: reducing symptoms and increasing social functioning

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the Illness Management and Recovery Program in comparison with the current standard of care in terms of reduction of symptoms, rehospitalisation rates and social functioning in Asia.

BACKGROUND

Focus of treatment for Mental Health had been shifted from mere management of symptoms to that of achievement of recovery. In the recovery process, strategies to achieve higher level of functioning were used (Psychiatric Services 2014, 65, 171). However, two main factors hindered clients from attaining recovery: first, the lack of Mental Health resources in the community and second the negative attitudes of healthcare professionals towards mental illness (American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation 2012, 15, 131). Hence, it is essential to implement an effective programme that will train mental health professionals to use more effective techniques and materials in helping the clients to better integrate into society by achieving skills in their attempt to work towards recovery.

DESIGN

This study adopts a time series experimental quantitative design.

METHODS

Fifty participants who consented to the study were randomly assigned to two groups. Participants in the experimental group received the experimental management and recovery programme, while the control group received standard care management by the community psychiatric nurses for a period of 12 months.

RESULTS

Participants in the experimental group reported significantly lower number of admissions, shorter length of stay, lower Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale scores, and also reported significantly higher scores on both the Illness Management and Recovery Scale and the Global Assessment Scale.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the effectiveness of IMR in helping Asian people with mental illness to not only reduce symptoms and hospitalisations but also improve social functioning. They have benefitted from the program although they are living in a different cultural setting from where IMR was developed.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The success of this study has raised the standard of care in the community intervention and led more people to their recovery.