Balancing harms in support of recovery

How Adults With Serious Mental Illness Learn and Use Wellness Recovery Action Plan's Recovery Framework

This study was conducted to investigate how adults with serious mental illness learn and utilize an illness self-management framework for pursuing recovery through a program called Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP). The researchers employed an interpretive descriptive methodology with thematic analysis. Data were collected from three focus groups (n = 26) and in-depth interviews with follow-up member checks with 10 participants (n = 20 interviews). Findings aligned with main constructs of self-determination theory (SDT) to explain how an autonomy-supportive environment created opportunities for participants to build competency, implementing personalized recovery strategies that are socially endorsed by peers, resulting in internalized motivation for continued application of WRAP's framework. SDT appears to explain mechanisms of change for WRAP. Recommendations for mental health organizations include broadly ensuring autonomy-supportive environments and services that maximize opportunities to build competence in recovery strategies in collaboration with peers. Future research may utilize SDT as the theoretical basis for investigating self-management programs.

Finding Common Ground for Diverging Policies for Persons with Severe Mental Illness

Two diametrically opposed positions predominate discourse for the care and treatment of persons with severe mental illness: anti-deinstitutionalization and anti-institutionalization. Both share the same goal of ensuring best quality of life for those with severe psychiatric disorders, but pathways to achieving this goal are very different and have resulted in much contention. Supporters of each position espouse a different belief system regarding people with psychiatric disorders and their presumed capabilities, placing varying emphasis on maximizing protection of the community versus protection of individual rights, and result in contrasting mental health policies and practice orientations. The authors delineate the history from which these positions evolved, consequent views, and policies and practices that emerged from these differing attitudes. The article culminates in a proposed practice approach that offers a more balanced approach to serving adults with mental illness -navigating risk management by preserving freedom and opportunities of risk while affording mutually satisfactory "risk control."

Opportunities, Enablers, and Barriers to the Use of Recorded Recovery Narratives in Clinical Settings

Background: Recorded Recovery Narratives (RRNs) describing first-person lived experience accounts of recovery from mental health problems are becoming more available. Little is known about how RRNs can be used in clinical practice and clinical education. Aims: The aim of this paper is to enable implementation planning for RRN interventions by identifying determinants of uptake. The objective was to identify opportunities, barriers, and enablers to the uptake of RRN interventions in clinical practice and education. Method: Three phases of focus groups were conducted with multi-professional mental health clinicians. Phase 1 (4 groups, n = 25) investigated current and possible uses of RRNs, Phase 2 (2 groups, n = 15) investigated a specific intervention delivering recovery narratives. Phase 3 (2 groups, n = 12) investigated clinical education uses. Thematic analysis was conducted. Results: RRNs can reinforce the effectiveness of existing clinical practices, by reducing communication barriers and normalizing mental health problems. They can also extend clinical practice (increase hope and connection, help when stuck). Clinical considerations are the relationship with care pathways, choice of staff and stage of recovery. In educational use there were opportunities to access lived experience perspectives, train non-clinical staff and facilitate attitudinal change. Barriers and enablers related to design (ability to use online resources, accessibility of language, ability to individualize choice of narrative), risk (triggering content, staff skills to respond to negative effects), trust in online resource (evidence base, maintenance), and technology (cost of use, technology requirements). Conclusions: RRNs can both improve and extend existing clinical practice and be an important educational resource. RRNs can improve engagement and hope, and address internalized stigma. Beneficially incorporating RRNs into clinical practice and education may require new staff skills and improved technological resources in healthcare settings. Future work could focus on the use of peer support workers views on RRN use and how to avoid unnecessary and unhelpful distress. Trial Registration Number: Work in this paper has informed three clinical trials: ISRCTN11152837; ISRCTN63197153; ISRCTN76355273.

Therapeutic risk-taking: A justifiable choice

Taking risks is a fundamental part of the human experience that supports personal growth. Therapeutic risk-taking enables patients to make decisions about their level of safety and to pursue goals. Promoting therapeutic risk-taking can be complex. Professionals can experience tension striving for a balance between the interests of the individual and societal pressures to control risk. This article examines therapeutic risk-taking, recognising the challenges to supporting it in practice and debating how they may be overcome.

Learning Objectives

• Be able to explain what therapeutic risk-taking is and discuss its application to psychiatric practice

• Understand the factors that challenge and enable therapeutic risk-taking in psychiatric practice

• Describe the association between therapeutic risk-taking and recovery

Service user experiences of REFOCUS: a process evaluation of a pro-recovery complex intervention

PURPOSE

Policy is increasingly focused on implementing a recovery-orientation within mental health services, yet the subjective experience of individuals receiving a pro-recovery intervention is under-studied. The aim of this study was to explore the service user experience of receiving a complex, pro-recovery intervention (REFOCUS), which aimed to encourage the use of recovery-supporting tools and support recovery-promoting relationships.

METHODS

Interviews (n = 24) and two focus groups (n = 13) were conducted as part of a process evaluation and included a purposive sample of service users who received the complex, pro-recovery intervention within the REFOCUS randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN02507940). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Participants reported that the intervention supported the development of an open and collaborative relationship with staff, with new conversations around values, strengths and goals. This was experienced as hope-inspiring and empowering. However, others described how the recovery tools were used without context, meaning participants were unclear of their purpose and did not see their benefit. During the interviews, some individuals struggled to report any new tasks or conversations occurring during the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Recovery-supporting tools can support the development of a recovery-promoting relationship, which can contribute to positive outcomes for individuals. The tools should be used in a collaborative and flexible manner. Information exchanged around values, strengths and goals should be used in care-planning. As some service users struggled to report their experience of the intervention, alternative evaluation approaches need to be considered if the service user experience is to be fully captured.