Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Does the scientific evidence support the recovery model?

  • Richard Warner (a1)
Summary

This editorial addresses the question of whether some of the basic tenets of the recovery model – optimism about outcome, the value of work, the importance of empowerment of patients and the utility of user-run programmes – are supported by the scientific research.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Does the scientific evidence support the recovery model?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Does the scientific evidence support the recovery model?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Does the scientific evidence support the recovery model?
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
Richard Warner (rwarner@coloradorecovery.com)
Footnotes
Hide All

Declaration of interest

None.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1 Liberman, RP. Recovery from Disability: Manual of Psychiatric Rehabilitation. American Psychiatric Publishing, 2008.
2 Shepherd, G, Boardman, J, Slade, M. Making Recovery a Reality. Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, 2008.
3 Leff, J, Warner, R. Social Inclusion of People with Mental Illness. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
4 Warner, R. Recovery from Schizophrenia: Psychiatry and Political Economy (3rd edn). Brunner-Routledge, 2004.
5 Lambert, M, Naber, D, Schacht, A, Wagner, T, Hundemer, HP, Karow, A, et al. Rates and predictors of remission and recovery during 3 years in 393 never-treated patients with schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2008; 118: 220–9.
6 Harrow, M, Jobe, TH. Factors involved in outcome and recovery in schizophrenia patients not on antipsychotic medications: a 15-year multi follow-up study. J Nerv Ment Dis 2007; 195: 406–14.
7 Crumlish, N, Whitty, P, Clarke, M, Browne, S, Kamali, M, Gervin, M, et al. Beyond the critical period: longitudinal study of 8-year outcome in first-episode non-affective psychosis. Br J Psychiatry 2009; 194: 1824.
8 Hopper, K, Harrison, G, Janca, A, Sartorius, N (eds). Recovery from Schizophrenia: An International Perspective. A Report of the WHO Collaborative Project, the International Study of Schizophrenia. Oxford University Press, 2007.
9 Brenner, MH. Mental Illness and the Economy. Harvard University Press, 1973.
10 Bond, GR, Resnick, SG, Drake, RE, Xie, H, McHugo, GJ, Bebout, RR. Does competitive employment improve non-vocational outcomes for people with severe mental illness? J Consult Clin Psychol 2001; 69: 489501.
11 Burns, T, Catty, J, Becker, T, Drake, RE, Fioritti, A, Knapp, M, et al. The effectiveness of supported employment for people with severe mental illness: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 370: 1146–52.
12 Crowther, RE, Marshall, M, Bond, GR, Huxley, P. Helping people with severe mental illness to obtain work: systematic review. BMJ 2001; 322: 204–8.
13 Twamley, EW, Jeste, DV, Lehman, AF. Vocational rehabilitation in schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders: a literature review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Nerv Ment Dis 2003; 191: 515–23.
14 Bond, GR. An update on randomized controlled trials of evidence-based supported employment. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2008; 31: 280–90.
15 Killackey, E, Jackson, HJ, McGorry, PD. Vocational intervention in first-episode psychosis: individual placement and support v. treatment as usual. Br J Psychiatry 2008; 193: 114–20.
16 Latimer, EA, Lecomte, T, Becker, DR, Drake, RE, Duclos, I, Piat, M, et al. Generalisability of the individual placement and support model of supported employment: results of a Canadian randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 189: 6573.
17 Warner, R, Taylor, D, Powers, M, Hyman, J. Acceptance of the mental illness label by psychotic patients: effects on functioning. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1989; 59: 398409.
18 Lysaker, PH, Davis, LW, Warman, DM, Strasburger, A, Beattie, N. Stigma, social function and symptoms in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: associations across six months. Psychiatry Res 2007; 149: 8995.
19 Yanos, PT, Roe, D, Marus, K, Lysaker, PH. Pathways between internalized stigma and outcomes related to recovery in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Psychiatr Serv 2008; 59: 1437–42.
20 Vauth, R, Kleim, B, Wirtz, M, Corrigan, PW. Self-efficacy and empowerment as outcomes of self-stigmatizing and coping in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 2007; 150: 7180.
21 Goss, C, Moretti, F, Mazzi, MA, Del Piccolo, L, Rimondini, M, Zimmermann, C. Involving patients in decisions during psychiatric consultations. Br J Psychiatry 2008; 193: 416–21.
22 Goossensen, A, Zijlstra, P, Koopmanschap, M. Measuring shared decision making processes in psychiatry: skills versus patient satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 67: 50–6.
23 Corrigan, PW. Impact of consumer-operated services on empowerment and recovery of people with psychiatric disorders. Psychiatr Serv 2006; 57: 1493–6.
24 Sells, D, Black, R, Davidson, L, Rowe, M. Beyond generic support: incidence and impact of invalidation in peer services for clients with severe mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2008; 59: 1322–7.
25 Resnick, SG, Rosenheck, RA. Integrating peer-provided services: a quasi-experimental study of recovery orientation, confidence and empowerment. Psychiatr Serv 2008; 59: 1307–14.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Bulletin
  • ISSN: 1758-3209
  • EISSN: 1758-3217
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Does the scientific evidence support the recovery model?

  • Richard Warner (a1)
Submit a response

eLetters

Old age psychiatry and the recovery model

Claire Hilton, Consultant old age psychiatrist
25 January 2010

We fail to see what all the fuss over the ‘Recovery Model’ is about. Nor can we appreciate why it has been so powerful in ‘influencing mental health service development around the world’. Working with older people, especially those with dementia butalso those with functional disorders, 'recovery' has been the style of ourwork long before it became a jargon term.

Our day assessment unit aims to give both the patient and their relatives as much autonomy as possible despite progressive mental disability. Enhancing wellbeing and giving meaning to people’s lives, empowering patients and carer to make decisions collaboratively, and enabling activities salient to the patient and carer have been integral toour work for years. We run inhouse educational courses and support groups for carers. Some carers’ courses have continued as informal groups, meeting and supporting each other even after the relative they arecaring for has died. An upmarket chain coffee emporium offers free drinks for one peer support group organised by a patient with a history ofbipolar affective disorder, which meets in their café; perhaps some would say this is unwarranted charity: the group does not think so. A ‘drop-in’at a local church hall is popular. Carers contribute to our educational programme for staff.

To us, the recovery model represents standard high quality old age psychiatric practice. So often we can see the quality of life of patientsand their relatives improve, despite progressive illness and disability, as understanding and coping mechanisms increase. Scientific evidence is not always necessary, especially when it is measured in economic rather than person-centred terms. The recovery model is a humane, self-esteem, self-respect approach, perhaps one which all psychiatry can learn from older people’s services. We will not become complacent in our practices even if services for younger people are catching up with us.
... More

Conflict of interest: None Declared

Write a reply

Empowerment and the recovery model

George J. Lodge, Consultant Psychiatrist
13 January 2010

I would not argue against the underlying principles espoused in the two leading articles in the first issue of The Psychiatrist 1,2. The principleof working with patients to help them to make informed decisions about options for their health care is embodied in the General Medical Council’s guidance: “Good Medical Practice” (GMP) 3, which says that doctors must work in partnership with patients, listen to patients and respond to their preferences.

Many psychiatric disorders are exacerbated or precipitated by stress.

Autonomy of action is associated with enhanced self esteem, reduced stress

and improved health. Meaningful employment contributes in many ways, giving: a sense of purpose and value; enhanced social status; structure and stability; opportunities for social interaction; and improved leisure and social opportunities as a result of greater disposable income.

Those working with sufferers from mental illness should be aware of these principles and, seek to incorporate them in the care they offer. In practice, however, professionals nominally subscribing to a “recovery model” may have a poor understanding of its complexity. An inappropriate application of the concept of empowering patients can lead to a laissez faire approach of simply endorsing the patient’s choice. This can result in justifying patients discontinuation of treatment and withdrawal from engagement with professionals. Such withdrawal can lead to relapse and a deteriorating prognosis and may itself be indicative of incipient relapse.

Professionals do not enjoy a monopoly of wisdom. We cannot reliably predict the course of a patient’s illness or how they might respond to treatment. Those with capacity have the right to decide not to accept treatment or to

deal with their illness in ways which professionals may consider unwise. However, GMP also says that doctors must provide effective treatments based on the best available evidence. The doctor’s duty to provide the best advice may include advising a patient that their intended course of action is likely to lead to an adverse outcome. It is incumbent upon us to inform patients of the probable consequences of their decisions and to continue efforts to engage

them, when we consider them to be at significant risk of deterioration or relapse.

Additionally, UK and European law takes a special view of mental disorder and allows for the patient’s autonomy to be over-ridden. It is a matter of judgment, governed by legislative safeguards as to when this should occur.

Such powers are generally only exercised when the patient’s ability to understand is so impaired as to render them incapacitated but a decision to override the decision of a capable patient may be made when the protection

of others is in question.

It is right to be adopt a positive approach, hopeful of recovery, after a first episode of psychosis. However, rather than adopt unqualified optimism, we should refine our approach using our knowledge of factors favouring a good

prognosis. Such features include: acute as opposed to insidious onset; clear and proximate psychogenesis; and the presence of marked affective features

in the symptomatology. Several interventions can improve the prognosis and

reduce the risk of relapse. Richard Warner points out the more favourable prognosis in less developed countries. One explanatory hypothesis is that the recovering patient is more likely to have a valued occupational role. Continued anti-psychotic medication reduces the risk of relapse. Psychosocial interventions to assist the patient in better understanding the illness and its behaviour, and work to modify family attitudes and environments appear to help. Complete resolution of symptoms encourages optimism about prognosis, but hopes for a meaningful and lasting recovery

need to be underpinned by appropriate support and treatment to reduce the risk of relapse.

Despite the advances made in treating the acute symptoms of schizophrenia and preventing acute relapse, social recovery rates do not appear to have improved since Eugen Bleuler coined the term schizophrenia 4. Richard Warner quotes a 40% social recovery level but, at the start of the 20th century, Bleuler considered that 60% of his patients showed only “mild deterioration”, that is: had preserved the ability to pursue an occupation.

While, therefore, I accept that significant numbers of patients with schizophrenia can remain symptom free and that others lead reasonably productive lives, it is still the case that the majority will experience a degree of impairment of function and many will suffer frank relapses of their positive symptoms or chronic levels of such symptoms.

Psychiatrists should strive to achieve that those diagnosed with schizophrenia are treated so that they become as free as possible of symptoms (including

adverse effects of treatment) and that they, their families and carers have as good as possible an understanding of the nature and behaviour of the illness, so that they can make effective informed decisions about their future healthcare. True empowerment requires the individual to have the best information available and the fullest command of their intellectual abilities in order to reach considered decisions based on that information. Suffering from psychosis is traumatic and bewildering experience. The course of the illness is unpredictable and frequently fluctuating. Sufferers should have

ongoing advice, support and treatment to cope with this.

1Sugarman P, Ikkos G, Bailey S. Choice in Mental Health: participation and recovery. The Psychiatrist 2010; 193: 1-3.

2Warner R. Does the scientific evidence support the recovery model?The Psychiatrist 2010; 193: 3-5.

3Good Medical Practice. General Medical Council, 2006

4Bleuler E. Dementia Praecox or the Group of Schizophrenias. New York. International University Press, 1950.

George Lodge was formerly Consultant Psychiatrist, with an interest in rehabilitation and is currently a Fitness to Practise chair for the General Medical Council and part-time medical member of the Mental Health Tribunal, e-mail: george.lodge@doctors.org.uk
... More

Conflict of interest: None Declared

Write a reply

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *