Download Recovery In Mental Illness: The Roots, Meanings, And

23
Recovery in Mental Illness:
The Roots, Meanings,
and Implementations of a
"New" Services Movement
Ann
McCranie
The history of the care and treatment of the mentally ill in America for almost four centuries
offers a sobering example of a cyclical pattern that has alternated between enthusiastic
optimism and fatalistic pessimism. (Gerald Grab, 1997, The Mad Among Us, pp. 309)
INTRODUCTION
Moral treatment, moral hygiene, asylums, psycho-pharmaceuticals, community
mental health, and community support: all have been heralded as positive
new directions for the treatment of severe and chronic mental illness. But the
reality of all of these models has fallen short of providing a permanent solution
or even the ideal support for treatment. Some have come to be seen in the
long run as actually harmful with people with serious mental illness. It was
against this backdrop of unsatisfactory, incremental, and unintentional
consequences - what Frank and Glied (2006) called "better but not well" in the
US context - that the movement of "recovery" has taken root modem mental
health services.
472
THE SAGE HANDBOOK
OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS
"Recovery" for in the field of mental health services is actually a complex
of ideas - but I propose it can be understood most simply as hope that someone,
particularly someone in the throes of suffering acutely from a serious and persistent mental health problem, can reclaim their life or create a newly meaningful
one. "Recovery-oriented" systems of care, then, are those that help rather than
hinder that individual in their "recovery." But admittedly, that broad brush fails
to captures what the range of meanings that "recovery" in the context of mental
illness means and has meant to different actors - individuals with mental illness,
family members, service providers, and policy makers - over time. Hopper offers
another start: "If a provisional consensus may be hazarded, it would read
something like this: recovery is difficult, idiosyncratic, and requires faith - but it
is possible" (2007: 870, emphasis added).
But how do concepts such as "hope" and "faith" fare in a mental health service
system? How do these concepts become embodied in the interaction between
provider and individual? How do those concepts become institutionalized and
embedded in a system of care marked with disappointment, lack of resources,
disorganization, and invisibility? What happens if these terms and movements
are co-opted or fail to take root? And what if Grob's historical view of the
pendulum swings from enthusiastic optimism to fatalistic pessimism proves
prophetic - and this is just the moment before the plunge?
The impact of major reform movements in mental health services, such as
deinstitutionalization (Brown, 1985; Jones, 1993), community care in Britain
(Rogers and Pilgrim, 2001) and the even the serendipitous origins of psychopharmacology (Healy, 2002) reveal that shifts in treatment can have profound
effects at individual, family, institutional, and state levels. The movement toward
"recovery" and "recovery-oriented services" has already had some impact on the
direction of recent mental health policy in the United States (Department
of Health and Human Services, 2003) and England (Department of Health,
2001, 2004) and research (Lieberman et aI., 2008). The challenge this concept
"recovery" presents to individuals to understand serious mental illness
differently is one important matter, but so too is the challenge the idea's promotion has had on individual and organizational practices and structures of care in
a changing fiscal, policy, and scientific environment.
The focus of this chapter is on the organizational field of mental health
services. The purpose is not to define "recovery" - as many have attempted
this already and the definition continues to change and be debated (Bellack,
2006; Davidson and Roe, 2007; Hopper, 2007; Jacobson and Greenley,
2001; National Consensus Conference on Mental Health Recovery and Mental
Health Systems Transformation, 2004; Noordsy et aI., 2002; Onken et aI., 2007).
Instead, it is to argue that recovery is a concept and movement in modem
mental health services. To that end, this chapter will present a brief history of
the concept in the mental health services field, including a set of key (but not
uncontested) definitions for recovery. It will also highlight the critiques, largely
from within the movement and offer a brief description of the diffusion of
RECOVERY IN MENTAL ILLNESS
473
recovery-oriented services and some of the most relevant social science research
on recovery.
Whether recovery is truly the "guiding vision" (Anthony, 1993), the "heart and
soul of treatment" (Townsend and Glasser, 2003), "old wine in new bottles"
(Davidson et al., 2005; Pilgrim, 2008), or it is just another pendulum swing up to
the "enthusiastic optimism" that Grob (1997) warned about, the concept's diffusion throughout the field marks an important moment in modern mental health
services. This movement has different implications for the different cultural and
material environments it enters. While this chapter focuses on the US context, it
will also briefly discuss how the concept of recovery has been received in several
other contexts, such as the United Kingdom and Australia.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF "RECOVERY" IN THE MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES FIELD
There is nothing new about the term "recovery" for people with mental illness.
The term has been used for many years to refer to a remission or reduction of
symptoms. In 1937, Abraham Low, a psychiatrist working in state mental hospitals in Illinois founded a group called "Recovery, Inc." devoted to structured
self-help groups to provide "after-care" for recently discharged hospital patients.
Recovery, Inc. focused on reducing "relapses," through social coping skills,
goal-setting, and increasing self-confidence. While Low's original organization
failed to gain acceptance in the larger research and treatment community and was
dissolved, it was reborn as a peer-led group model (Low, [1991] 1943) that still
exists today.
However, the roots of a concept of recovery - if not the term - have been traced
back to over 200 years ago to Philippe Pinel and his traitement moral in Paris
asylums (Davidson et al., 2010). And certainly the concept of recovery is familiar
from the field of addictions treatment (Davidson and White, 2007). Yet, at some
points in recent history, recovery was, for some seen as impossible. In the case of
schizophrenia, even the clinical definition asserted a declining course and a permanent state of illness - such as in Emil Kraepelin criteria for "dementia praecox."
Remission or recovery was seen as prima fascia evidence that the illness had not
been dementia praecox. Eugen Bleuler, who challenged this diagnosis and
renamed this condition "schizophrenia" in part to remove the connotation with
dementia, also challenged the chronicity of the problems, recognizing that people
diagnosed with it could get better.
This early dispute is often cited in the literature about recovery (Bellack, 2006;
Corrigan et aI., 1999; Jacobson, 2004; Lieberman et al., 2008). In addition, several
longitudinal studies of the outcomes of individuals who had been institutionalized or diagnosed with schizophrenia suggested that a large percentage, perhaps
a large majority, of individuals were improved after a period of time, particularly
in the area of remission of symptoms (Bleuler, 1974; Harding et al., 1987;
474
THE SAGE HANDBOOK
OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS
Jacobson, 2004; Lieberman et al., 2008; Tsuang et al., 1979). The concept of
recovery in mental health services is often less concrete and posits a more expansive view of the possibilities for individuals than the outcomes investigated in
these studies (e.g., symptom reduction, decreased medication usage, living independently, working, etc.). However, as studies showed evidence that improved
quality of life in some key life domains was possible, they provided an "evidence
base" of recovery and had a particular meaning to researchers who sought to
promote the ideological concept (Jacobson, 2004).
In one of the first and most cited articles about recovery, clinical psychologist,
and advocate Patricia Deegan (1988) wrote a first person account of her illness
and recovery experience and argued that recovery is different from psychosocial
(or psychiatric) rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, she argued, is about services and
technologies, but "recovery refers to the lived or real experiences of persons as
they accept and overcome the challenge of the disability" (1988: 7). Early first
person accounts had a strong influence on the direction researchers went with
their recovery writing and pushed beyond the traditional concepts of symptom
reduction, independent living, treatment utilization, and employment that were
hallmarks of psychiatric outcomes work.
Themes that emerge from Deegan's work, and that three other notable first
person accounts of recovery from mental illness - Marcia Lovejoy (1982), Esso
Leete (1989), and Rae Unzicker (1989) - include hope, acceptance, engagement
in social life, active coping, and reclaiming a positive sense of self (Ridgway,
2001). First person accounts such as these became the basis for establishing
a definition of recovery, and even now comprise a large basis of research for
recovery researchers and for seeing recovery as a unique "journey" into finding
purpose in one's life (Davidson, 2003; Deegan, 2003; Mead and Copeland, 2000;
Ridgway, 2001; Roe and Lachman, 2005; Wisdom et al., 2008).
It would not be long before researchers and providers were also promoting the
concept of recovery. After publishing a short piece addressing the topic in 1991,
William Anthony, a psychologist and director of the Boston University Center
for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, returned to the topic wrote the recovery "call to
arms" in the mental health services literature (1993). In this he outlined both the
"vision" of recovery that would guide services in the years to come and what a
recovery-oriented system would look like. Recovery is:
a deeply personal, unique process of changing one's attitudes, values, feelings, goals, skills,
and/or roles. It is a way of living a satisfying, hopeful, and contributing life even with limitations caused by illness. Recovery involves the development of new meaning and purpose in
one's life as one grows beyond the catastrophic effects of mental illness. (1993: 527)
Anthony asserts that "(r)ecovery is what people with disabilities do ... Recovery
is a truly unifying human experience" (1993: 527-528). Recovery, according to
Anthony, is multi-dimensional, defying simplistic measurement. However, he
laid out a set of assumptions to which providers in a recovery-oriented system of
care should adhere: recovery happens with or without treatment; it requires social
RECOVERY IN MENTAL ILLNESS
475
support; it is independent of etiological beliefs about illness; and it can continue
even if symptoms re-occur (i.e., recovery being a "non-linear process"). For
Anthony, recovery is unique to each person, requires that the person have choices
about their situation, and must also take place in a social context in which
recovery from the consequences of the illness (such as stigma) can be harder to
overcome than the mental health problem. Recovery-oriented
services would not
just rely on more traditional activities such as treatment, crisis intervention, case
management, and rehabilitation, but would also seek to enrich lives, protect
rights, and enable basic support and self-help.
Anthony's work is still highly cited, even though the effort to find a commonly
accepted definition of recovery has so far been elusive, even by those quite motivated to promote and carry it out in services (e.g., Clay et aI., 2005; Davidson
et aI., 2005). Several comprehensive reviews and proposed reformulations have
been attempted (Bellack, 2006; Corrigan and Ralph, 2005; Jacobson, 2001;
Jacobson and Greenley, 2001; Lunt, 2002; Noordsy et aI., 2002; Onken et al.,
2007; Ralph, 2000; Roe et al., 2007). But there is broad agreement among those
who study recovery is that the notion is subject to much "confusion, dialogue,
and debate" (Davidson et aI., 2006: 6) and that "(l)ike mental illness itself, the
notion of recovery represents a multidimensional
set of phenomena which may
share nothing more than a Wittgensteinian
sense of 'family resemblance'"
(Davidson and Roe, 2007: 460).
Two often cited distinctions that appear in the literature are "recovery in" vs.
"recovery from" (Davidson and Roe, 2007) or to internal vs. external processes
in recovery (Jacobson and Greenley, 2001). Davidson and Roe distinguish
between the meaning of recovery "from" mental illness as a more symptombased remission type of return to function, whereas recovery "in" mental illness
can refer to moving ahead with life even as symptoms persist and functions are
not returned. Jacobson and Greenley (2001) refer to the "internal" components of
recovery, such as hope, attitudes, experiences and processes of individual change,
whereas "external" conditions - such as material circumstances,
services,
policies, practices, can aid or hinder the process. These themes are echoed again
and again as researchers attempt to clarify the meaning of recovery.
Recovery in the United States
In the United States, the banner of recovery was seen as an opportunity
for
common ground for individuals with mental illness and providers (Frese, 1998).
It was lauded as a goal for individuals and for systems in the 1999 Surgeon
General's Report (Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). Two of
the more influential recent definitions came from high profile public reports
on the "transformation" of the mental health systems, one from President George
W. Bush's New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health (New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health, 2003) and the other from the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),s National Consensus
476
THE SAGE HANDBOOK
OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS
Statement (2004). In the New Freedom Commission report, recovery was a
central organizing concept:
Recovery refers to the process in which people are able to live, work, learn, and participate
fully in their communities. For some individuals, recovery is the ability to live a fulfilling and
productive life despite a disability. For others, recovery implies the reduction or complete
remission of symptoms. Science has shown that having hope plays an integral role in an
individual's recovery. (2003: 5)
Shortly after, the US Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) produced a "consensus statement" that defined recovery as
"a journey of healing and transformation enabling a person with a mental health
problem to live a meaningful life in a community of his or her choice while striving to achieve his or her full potential." The consensus was reached after a series
of reports and paper on topics surrounding recovery was commissioned and over
100 stakeholders in mental health service providers - individuals with mental
illness, family members, academic researchers, providers, government officials,
etc. - worked to find agreement on the meaning. The consensus statement also
identifies ten "dimensions" of recovery: self-direction, individualized and personcentred, empowerment, holism, non-linearity, strengths-based, peer support,
respect, responsibility, and finally, hope (National Consensus Conference on
Mental Health Recovery and Mental Health Systems Transformation, 2004).
Critiquing the concept of recovery
Even among supporters for the concept of "recovery" in the mental health
services field, some have pointed out that studying recovery is a problem for
scientists because it can become overly broad and meaningless (Roe et al., 2007).
While arguing for understanding that would draw from economist and philosopher Amartya Sen's capabilities approach, Hopper described the current state of
affairs of the concept of recovery a "co-opted, near-toothless gospel of hope"
(2007: 877). He noted the lack of contentiousness about the varied meanings
reflect "working misunderstandings" of the meanings and values attached to the
concept (2008: 307). Pilgrim (2008, 2009) makes a similar argument about
the "polyvalent concept" of recovery and argues that ethnographic study of the
concept is needed to untangle meanings and enactments lest these misunderstandings continue. Others have argued recovery could be in some instances a
veiled attempt to further cut services or to leave behind those in most need in the
name of reaching an elusive goal (Dickerson, 2006; Johnson, 2005). Peyser (2001)
warned that it could actually harm individuals by interfering with treatment goals
of symptom reduction. As the call for recovery -oriented services was (and still is)
happening alongside managed care reforms and calls for the "transformation" of
US mental health services, Jacobson and Curtis (2000) note that recovery could
be co-opted as a concept and left without content.
The moving target of the definition, coupled with the difficulty of pinning
down concepts as "hope" and "unique processes," have led to frustration and
RECOVERY IN MENTAL
ILLNESS
477
scepticism and some suggestion that recovery ought to be rooted in "objectively
measureable" functional criteria focused on symptom reduction and remission
(Bellack, 2006; Liberman et al., 2002; Roe et al., 2007). This is a direct challenge
to the view that recovery is not about symptoms or functional improvement.
However, the focus on functional remission may serve as a de facto answer for
researchers frustrated with concepts too difficult to operationalize. Liberman
and Kopelowicz (2005), for instance distinguishes between the "process" and
"outcome" of recovery. A recent special issue of Schizophrenia Bulletin (see
Essock and Sederer, 2009) published a series of seven reports on measurement of
"functional recovery." The focus of this "functional recovery" that it is focused
more on an individual's ability to be able to perform daily activities (such as
self-care and work) and be integrated into social life.
Leiberman et al. (2008) suggests that in order for it to be a useful heuristic,
recovery should be qualified with the domain of life in which it is achieved such as "recovery of vocational function" or "recovery of cognitive function."
This account of a way to pull together neuroscience and psychiatry with the
recovery movement allows the focus to stay on more traditional issues of symptomatology and "acknowledges" but does not address the other issues of living so
close to the recovery movement: "civil rights, stigma, housing, vocational opportunities, and other community issues" (Leiberman et al., 2008: 488). Some within
the movement have also argued that recovery as a term suggests going or looking
back to a previous, perhaps mythical "state of health," whereas the true goal should
be moving forward. Advocate Kathleen Crow ley has termed this idea "Procovery"
(Crowley, 2000) and has developed a set of trainings for providers and individuals
and "Procovery Circles" that function like peer-led support groups.
But the component parts of recovery remain difficult to measure. An effort by
European researchers to review the literature for the use of the concept of "hope"
found 49 different definitions and 32 different measurement tools (Schrank et al.,
2008). In an era of increased interest and demand for evidence-based practices in
mental health services, some have questioned (Browne, 2006) whether recovery
can be even be appropriately tied to outcomes, while others have said that it can
and should be done (Anthony et al., 2003; Frese et al., 2001). Tanenbaum (2006)
identifies the tensions between the tenets of evidence-base practice (EBP), so
heavily dependent on randomized control trials and experimental methods and
aggregate results, and the tenets of recovery, so focused on individualized and
self-determining recovery goals. In short, she argues that recovery demands a
new standard for EBP studies, one that involves individuals with mental illness
in the meaning making of research framing and interpretation.
It is important to note where in the mental health services literature rigorous
discussion has been taking place. Discussion and disagreements about the meaning of recovery in the psychiatric/psychosocial rehabilitation and community
mental health journals have been answered with a more muted critique - even
silence - from the larger clinical psychiatric and psychological community. For
instance, a recent working group of prominent psychiatrists and neuroscientists
478
THE SAGE HANDBOOK
OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS
considered criteria for remission of schizophrenia and came up with some
significant changes, but explicitly avoided engaging the criteria for recovery, as
the concept is underspecified and reflects "ongoing multidisciplinary efforts
seeking to incorporate the viewpoints of patients, caregivers, and clinicians, as
well as an evolving appreciation for the relationship between improvements in
symptoms, cognition, and functionality" (Andreasen et al., 2005: 442). The relatively supportive language about the potential for recovery as a concept - if only
it can be more clearly specified - belies a larger silence by some of the most
prominent journals in the fields of clinical psychiatry (such as the Archives of
General Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, and the American Journal of
Psychiatry) or clinical psychology (such as Psychological Medicine, or the influential Annual Review of Psychology or Annual Review of Clinical Psychology)
about anything other than a functional recovery outcome measure (far more akin
to a remission paradigm). One exception to this is the British Journal of
Psychiatry, which has published a number of pieces taking the issue head-on
(Dickens, 2009; Dinniss, 2006; Lester and Gask, 2006), perhaps reflecting a different national response to the concept (discussed more below). In the United
States, academic discussion has been largely relegated to journals that are focused
on services research (Psychiatric Services, Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation,
and Community Mental Health Journal) and the more narrowly focused journal,
Schizophrenia Bulletin (which, not coincidentally, published some of those early
first-person accounts (Leete, 1989; Lovejoy, 1982) that came to influence the
concept's development.
As George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Silence is the most perfect expression of
scorn" and this quiet could portend a larger battle for this community of service
researchers to have the idea of recovery, with its messy multiple constituencies,
recognized in larger academic circles. This silence in the broader community,
after a 20-year history of writing high profile policy involvement, and the emergence of new treatment models, speaks volumes of the "fractiousness that has yet
to face the fact" (Hopper, 2007: 307). Sociologists would do well to pay attention
to these cleavages - as they reflect long-standing divisions in the treatment and
research of mental illness within psychology and psychiatry - between medical
and social understandings of illness.
MARCHING AHEAD: "RECOVERY-ORIENTED SERVICES"
IN AN AGE OF "EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES"
As recovery has gained currency, so have efforts to tie specific models of
treatment to it. Davidson defined recovery-oriented services as those that emphasize the shared decision making of individual and provider (Davidson et al.,
2009). Psychosocial, or psychiatric, rehabilitation models, which emphasize goal
setting, skill-building and community integration were a welcome home for
recovery principles (Lamb, 1994; Stromwall and Hurdle, 2003; Taylor and
RECOVERY IN MENTAL ILLNESS
479
Yuen, 2008). One the field's leading journals, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal,
(founded and edited by Anthony), has become central for publications on
recovery. The connection between the field of rehabilitation and recovery is an
early one with Anthony's involvement and Deegan's warning in 1988 that rehabilitation was not synonymous with a recovery-oriented approach. The United
States Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association, the field's professional certification organization, has adopted recovery language in its mission statement and
recovery-oriented services as a center point in its training efforts.
The concept of recovery has focused on new individual service models,
practices, types of actors, and the interaction between care providers and those
they work with. Simultaneously, there has been an interest in developing and
implementing evidence-based practices (analogous to the evidence-based medicine movement in general health research). How to square the goals of evidencebased practices with the more subjective terms of recovery has been the subject
of much discussion (Anthony et al., 2003; Bellack, 2006; Farkas et al., 2005;
Fisher and Ahern, 2002; O'Connor and Delaney, 2007; Tanenbaum, 2006). Frese
et al. (2001) suggests that recovery-based models of treatment (those that emphasize more choice, empowerment, and regaining control of one's life) would
be more appropriate when the individual is experiencing less severe symptoms of
illness and is not as highly impaired in their decision-making ability. A more
evidence-based medical model approach could be appropriate when individuals
are more impaired. Frese et al. points out that among activists, support for
"recovery-oriented services" vs. "evidence-based practices" varies along a continuum of severity of illness for which the activists advocate. This illustrates a
tension between functional remission (recovery "from") and personal journeys
of recovery (recovery "in").
One identified evidence-based practice that is explicitly tied to recovery movement and stresses empowerment of individuals is "Illness Management and
Recovery" (Mueser et al., 2002; Roe et al., 2009). Illness Management and
Recovery is a structured program for providers that encourages them to work in
concert with individual consumers/users to plan for and pursue individual goals.
It stresses educating individuals about mental illness, about the "stress vulnerability model" and how to reduce their chances of stressful circumstances that
could lead to relapse. Individuals are also walked through steps to build their own
social support networks, counselled about their medication use, and to navigate
the mental health system.
Deegan, in attempting to address some of the problems that individuals face
when they talk to their providers about their medication use, has introduced
"CommonGround" (Deegan et al., 2008). This model offers a web-based software package to help individuals talk more openly about their psychotropic
(and other) medication usage with their doctors. An individual would use
Common Ground, which asks questions about usage, side effects, and other
issues involving medication, before seeing their provider. They would also be
prompted to share information with their doctor about their "personal medicine,"
480
THE SAGE HANDBOOK
OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS
(Deegan, 2005) or non-pharmaceutical techniques, like walking or gardening,
they use to gain relief from their problems. This intervention, still in the pilot
stage, is one of many efforts to foster collaboration between individuals and their
providers and to provide a more "recovery-oriented" approach to care.
But the recovery movement has also advanced the creation of a new category
of professional caregivers - that offered by peers who also have mental illness
who then are trained to work with others (Clay et al., 2005; Corrigan et aI.,
2005). Peer support is nothing particularly new - recall Low's reliance on peers
in the late 1930s for his Recovery, Inc. and the emphasis on peer-run support
programs such as clubhouses and advocacy organizations (Clay et al., 2005).
But, the new emphasis on training and certifying peers ("Peer Recovery Support
Specialists") to provide mental health services to other individuals, has added a
new professional category for individuals with mental illness (or their family
members). Special certification programs (at the Institute for Recovery and
Community Integration, for instance), special billing codes for services, and a
national professional organization (the National Association of Peer Specialists,
Inc.) have developed. Certification as a peer specialist depends on an individual's
identity as someone diagnosed with a mental illness, but other identity-based
professional statuses are available. In Florida, for instance, certification is
available as a "peer," as a "family peer" and as both.
One of the motivations behind peer support as recovery-oriented services hearkens back to advocate demands for more involvement in the treatment system by
individuals affected with mental illness. But there is also Deegan's concept ofthe
contagiousness of hope (1988) - that by modeling recovery, peers can provide
inspiration to others to pursue their own goals.
CONCORDANCE AND CONTRASTS: RECOVERY
IN NON-US CONTEXTS
The discussion above is not to suggest that recovery is a conceptual product or
discovery of the United States (indeed, international scholars are engaged in discussions with US scholars cited above). The concept of recovery has a much
longer history, crossing many eras and national borders (Davidson et aI., 2010).
It is perhaps more appropriate to talk about the "rediscovery" of recovery (Ramon
et al., 2007). But as others have noted (Allott and Loganathan 2002; Ramon
et al., 2007), the influence of some US (and New Zealand) researchers and
policy makers has been felt in the United Kingdom, particularly through policy
documents, such as those from the Ohio Department of Mental Health, and
through specific recovery approaches, such as the Wellness Action Recovery
Plan (Copeland, 1997[2002]).
However, the modern recovery movement met a somewhat different set of
circumstances when it began to be recognized and written about in the UK.
It meshed with the political agenda of "social inclusion" in welfare policies since
RECOVERY IN MENTAL ILLNESS
481
New Labour came to power in 1997 (Ramon et al., 2007) and with a more
general focus on lay-lead self-management of chronic physical and mental
conditions (Davidson et al., 2005). The meaning of that social inclusion rhetoric
has been questioned by some (Pilgrim, 2008; Rogers and Pilgrim, 2001), as they
note the concurrent fascination with "risk management" of individuals with
mental illness. While social inclusion is a clearly stated goal of many US policy
documents, it is clearly not a central focus of most recovery work - which is far
more focused on individuals. Appealing to Amartya Sen, some US researchers
(Hopper, 2007; Ware et al., 2008) have called for a reconceptualization of recovery from a capabilities approach and social model of disabilities approach - yet
another example of the border-crossing of ideas.
Similar to the "transformation" effort of the United States, mental health
services in the UK have also been the subject of a decade of concerted transformation efforts begun in 1999 called the National Services Framework. This
framework, while ambitious and underfunded, has been focused largely on deinstitutionalization and a community support model (Department of Health, 2001;
Sainsbury Center for Mental Health, 2003). Ramon et al. (2007) declare it a
largely unimplemented process, with few clear guidelines for seeing it through.
Throughout Britain and Ireland there are varying degrees of implementation.
Ireland, for instance, has only recently begun to address recovery in policy documents (Kartalova-O'Doherty and Doherty, 2010), whereas Scotland has already
developed and begun implementing its own recovery indicator tool - based on
one developed in New York State - and has made a concerted effort to train peer
recovery specialists (Scottish Recovery Network, 2005; Slade, 2009).
Australia, as Ramon et al. (2007) points out, might not have been using the
term "recovery" in policy documents until 2003, when it was addressed as a core
concept in the National Mental Health Service Plan. But as early as 1989, language that echoed central tenets in most recovery definitions - optimism for
improvement and the importance of involving people with mental illness in their
own treatment planning process - were central to Australian national policy. There,
recovery oriented work is being pushed largely by consumer/service user groups,
and is largely housed in a somewhat separate psychosocial rehabilitation system
heavily influenced by consumers/service users. This stands outside the more
"clinical" approach of most public mental health clinics (Ramon et al., 2007).
While Anglophone researchers and writers of recovery often refer and even
import work from other national contexts, the conceptual flexibility can mean
important differences are lost. This international diffusion of ideas and practices
deserves attention.
CONSIDERING
RECOVERY IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Some sociologists have already begun addressing recovery and recovery-oriented
services and the impact they could have on individuals and mental health systems.
482
THE SAGE HANDBOOK
OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS
Nora Jacobson's articles (Jacobson, 2001, 2003; Jacobson and Greenley, 2001)
and book length treatment on recovery efforts in the state of Wisconsin (2004) is
expansive in its scope and places recovery in the US federalist context. In an
effort to understand the definition, process, and consequences of recovery in
mental health services, she (2004) deconstructs the various usages of the term
recovery and identifies five key meanings: evidence, experience, ideology, policy,
and politics. These "recovery-as" meanings each operate at different levels and
convey different meanings about what recovery is.
Jacobson parses the various definitions of recovery that mental health stakeholder draw upon. "Recovery-as-evidence" refers particularly to the growing
understanding by mental health service researchers that individuals with serious
mental illness could, and did, in fact get better over time and see a remission of
symptoms. "Recovery-as-experience" drew meaning from the lived experiences
and narratives of those with mental illness, and drew more from a political
and social-disabilities based understanding of the individual embedded within a
social context. "Recovery-as-ideology" drew from the two previous wells of
meaning and crafted a new stream of research and writing about how providers
and services ought to be organized to support recovery. "Recovery-as-policy"
developed as policy-setting bodies (like state governments) tried to make
sense of this new emphasis to translate it into policy and practice. "Recoveryas-politics" is the ongoing process of how to deal with the consequences of
the movement in light of other realities, such as constricted finances, more
calls for evidence-based practices, and peer involvement in the provision of
treatment.
Jacobson (2004) poses seminal questions about the consequences of recovery:
what will a recovery-oriented system looks like, who benefits, how it will be
compatible with other system changes, and how its success or failure will be
evaluated? Further, who will have the right to evaluate success? As she noted
earlier (Jacobson and Curtis, 2000), the questions start as questions of epistemology and end with questions of policies and values.
Others find different sets of meanings and interest groups. Pilgrim (2008,
2009) cautions that recovery is a "polyvalent concept," and using Britain as a
case study, finds it to have at least three distinct and sometimes contradictory
meanings. In one, it refers to a notion that biomedical psychiatric biological
recovery from illness is possible - a direct contradiction to the Kraepelin pessimism of a declining course. A second meaning, held by those providers offering
a social skills or rehabilitation approach, takes another optimistic view of the
course of illness from a different philosophy of treatment. A third, what Pilgrim
refers to as the "dissenting service user" approach is a more social model of
recovery, focused on empowerment and autonomy, sometimes in opposition to
the oppressiveness of treatment regimes. These three meanings, all operating under
the same banner of recovery, can be used simultaneously or individually, but
can mask critical ontological positions and make meaningful policy consensus
precarious or impossible.
RECOVERY IN MENTAL
ILLNESS
483
Other sociologists have taken interest in recovery - particularly as an
outcome. For instance, one groups of researchers (Link et al., 2001) have
taken a sociological approach to understanding how stigma can impede
recovery and found that experienced stigma impacts later self-esteem measures.
Relatedly, Markovitz (2001) has approached recovery from the outcomes
perspective, and has proposed a recovery model that incorporates symptoms,
self-concept, and life satisfaction as all reciprocally related to one another in
the lives of individuals with mental illness. Finding support in his work for
both a social stress/social support argument that social circumstances contribute
to illness and to medical/psychiatric view of symptoms causing social distress,
Markovitz concludes that that treatment that incorporates both symptom
management and social and vocation skills training are key to being
"recovery -oriented."
Echoing (but not drawing from) Jacobson and Greenley's (2001) distinctions
of "internal" vs. "external" conditions for recovery, Yanos et al. (2007) argue
that sociologists understanding of both structure and agency can be enhanced
by paying attention to the ways in which individual choices and constraints
and collective action can reconfigure social structures and enhance or inhibit
recovery for individuals. Individual actions, such as coping and goal-setting
coupled with structural transformation through collective political action,
can increase individuals' abilities to recover. Both social structure and individual
agency become critical considerations when considering recovery, a task
made no easier when outcomes for individuals are often considered outside
a structure/agency framework, and rather a function of biology and of
symptomatology.
With an explicitly political economic take on recovery, Warner (1994) argues
provocatively that recovery from schizophrenia is tied to socioeconomic
conditions. Oppressive economic conditions create stressors for people who then
suffer disproportionately when economic conditions keep them from resuming
meaningful adult social roles (such as employment) or from enjoying basic
necessities (such as secure housing and food). Furthermore, systems of care that
do not ameliorate stress on caregivers and families leave individuals adrift and
socially isolated, stressed further.
All of these arguments about the nature of recovery, particularly as they impact
the individual are important. However, there is a further set of questions about
what recovery suggests for the future of the mental health service system, and
how it is organized that are only now beginning to be answerable. What, for
instance, does it mean when the meaningful and unique personal journey of
recovery is a valued concept by researchers and providers, but remains so illusive
in definition and measurement? What does this portend for policy choices? What
happens when "recovery" meets a policy environment interested in enacting
performance-based standards and "transformation" (in the United States). The
literature on engaging recovery and evidence-based practices begins to suggest
that there is no simple answer.
484
THE SAGE HANDBOOK
OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS
CONCLUSION: AGENDA FOR THE SOCIOLOGICAL
STUDY OF RECOVERY
Brand new technologies and revolutionary ideas can rapidly displace old ways.
But the history of mental health treatments reveals that many elements of care for
people with serious mental illness - such as moral treatment, moral hygiene,
asylums, psycho-pharmaceuticals, community mental health, and community
support - do not simply appear or disappear, but rather wax and wane in importance, and get reinvented and rediscovered over time. Perhaps the concept of
recovery will be something similar. While it has increased in prominence in rhetoric, policy, and services over the last two decades, the concept has a long history.
While it is clear that the rhetoric of recovery has permeated at least one corner
of the modern mental health services field, that of rehabilitation, this material
impact of this "guiding vision" is still unfolding. Certainly services have been
challenged, efforts to change attitudes and outlooks are underway, and the
diffusion of this idea and language has crossed many borders.
For a field that has been so active and fruitful in discussing the social construction of mental illness, few sociologists of mental health have taken on the
flip: the social construction of recovery. It is time and we are well-equipped.
For instance, sociology can and should explore further the provocative political
economic research of Warner (1994) and the questions it raised. Sociologists
of mental health have done excellent work in understanding how mental illness
and stress is stratified, but paid less attention to how recovery from that
same problem is also stratified. If we are to believe Warner, understanding this
could point us to clear ways in which systems can be strengthened for the most
vulnerable.
In addition, drawing the concept of recovery from the stories of the successful
can draw on a rich history of the sociology of mental illness of identity research.
In addition to the obvious contributions we can offer to understanding the lived
experiences of people with serious mental illness who are recovering or are
recovered, sociologists of mental health should attend to this social movement
both inside and outside of research circles as it develops or withers. Who will win
in this nascent dispute over whether outcome or process should come to represent recovery in the academic literature? Will recovery become another fad of the
mental health services literature and fade away, or will it have staying power as
it is ingratiated into treatment models and policy statements? What impact does
this recovery have on traditional social pressures such as stigma? And finally,
who "recovers," and who does not?
REFERENCES
Allatt, P. and Linda L. (2002) Discovering Hope For Recovery From A British Perspective - A Review of
a Sample of Recovery Literature, Implications for Practice and Systems Change. Birmingham:
West Midlands Partnerships for Mental Health.
RECOVERY
IN MENTAL
ILLNESS
485
Andreasen, Nancy C, William T. Carpenter, Jr., John M. Kane, Robert A. Lasser, Stephen R. Marder,
and Daniel R. Weinberger (2005) Remission in schizophrenia: proposed criteria and rationale for
consensus. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162: 441-449.
Anthony, William A. (1991) Recovery from mental illness: the new vision of service researchers.
Innovations and Research, 1: 13-14.
Anthony, William A. (1993) Recovery from mental illness: the guiding vision of the mental heath service
sustem in the 1990s. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 16: 11-23.
Anthony, William A., Sally Rogers, E. and Marianne Farkas (2003) Research on evidence-based
practices: future directions in an era of recovery. Community Mental Health Journal, 39: 101-14.
Bellack, Alan S. (2006) Scientific and consumer models of recovery in schizophrenia: concordance, contrasts, and implications. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32: 432-442.
Bleuler, M. (1974) The long-term course of the schizophrenic psychoses. Psychological Medicine,
4: 244-254.
Brown, P. (1985) The Transfer of Care. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Browne, G. (2006) Outcome measures: do they fit with a recovery model? International Journal of
Mental Health Nursing, 15: 153-4.
Clay, Sally, Bonnie Schell, Patrick W. Corrigan, and Ruth O. Ralph (2005) On Our Own, Together.
Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Copeland, Mary Ellen (1997[2002]) Wellness Action Recovery Plan. West Dummerston, VT: Peach
Press.
Corrigan, Patrick W, Daniel Giffort, Fadwa Rashid, Matthew Leary, and Iheoma Okeke (1999) Recovery
as a psychological construct. Community Mental Health Journal, 35 231-239.
Corrigan, Patrick W. and Ruth O. Ralph (2005) Introduction: recovery as consumer vision. In R.O. Ralph
and PW. Corrigan (eds). Recovery in Mental Illness: Broadening Our Understanding of Wellness.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 3-18.
Corrigan, Patrick W., Natalie Siopen, Gabriela Gracia, Sean Phelan, Cornelius B. Keogh, and Lorraine
Keck. (2005) Some recovery processes in mutual-help groups for persons with mental illness; II:
qualitative analysis of participant interviews. Community Mental Health Journal, 41: 721-735.
Crowley, Kathleen (2000) The Power of Procovery in Healing Mental Illness: Just Start Anywhere.
Los Angeles: Kennedy Carlisle Publishing.
Davidson, Larry (2003) Living Outside Mental Illness: Qualitative Studies of Recovery in Schizophrenia.
New York: New York University Press.
Davidson, Larry and David Roe (2007) Recovery from versus recovery in serious mental illness: One
strategy for lessening confusion plaguing recovery. Journal of Mental Health, 16: 459-470.
Davidson, Larry and William White (2007) The concept of recovery as an organizing principle for
integrating mental health and addiction services. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research,
34: 109-120.
Davidson, Larry, Martha S. Lawless, and Fiona Leary (2005) Concepts of recovery: competing or
complementary ? Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 18: 664-667.
Davidson, Larry, Maria J. O'Connell, Janis Tondora, Martha Lawless, and Arthur C. Evans (2005)
Recovery in serious mental illness: a new wine or just an old bottle? Professional Psychology Research
and Practice, 36: 480-487.
Davidson, Larry, Maria O'Connell, Janis Todora, M. Staeheli, and Arthur C. Evans (2005) Recovery in
serious mental illness: paradigm shift or Shibboleth? In L. Davidson, C.M. Harding, and L. Spaniol
(eds). Recovery from Serious Mental Illness: Research Evidence and Implications for Practice. Boston:
Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation, pp. 5-24.
Davidson, Larry, Maria O'Connell, Janis Tondora, Thomas Styron, and Karen Kangas (2006) The top ten
concerns about recovery encountered in mental health system transformation. Psychiatric Services,
57: 640-645.
Davidson, Larry, Robert E. Drake, Timothy Schmutte, Thomas Dinzeo, and Raquel Andres-Hyman (2009)
Oil and water or oil and vinegar? Evidence-based medicine meets recovery. Community Mental Health
Journal, 45: 323-332.
486
THE SAGE HANDBOOK
OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS
Davidson, Larry, Jaak Rakfeldt, and John S. Strauss (2010) The Roots of the Recovery Movement in
Psychiatry: Lessons Learned. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Davidson, Laurie (2005) Recovery, self management and the expert patient - Changing the culture of
mental health from a UK perspective. Journal of Mental Health, 14: 25-35.
Deegan, Gene (2003) Discovering recovery. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 26: 368-76.
Deegan, Patricia E. (1988) Recovery: the lived experience of rehabiliation. Psychosocial Rehabilitation
Journal, 11: 11-19.
Deegan, Patricia E. (2005) The importance of personal medicine: a qualitative study of resilience in
people with psychiatric disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. Supplement, 66: 29-35.
Deegan, Patricia E., Charlie Rapp, Mark Holter, and Melody Riefer (2008) Best practices: a program to
support shared decision making in an outpatient psychiatric medication clinic. Psychiatric Services,
59: 603-605.
Department of Health and Human Services (1999) Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General.
Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD.
Department of Health and Human Services (2003) Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health
Care in America. Department of Health and Human Services, President's New Freedom Commission
on Mental Health, Rockville, MD.
Department of Health (2001) The Journey to Recovery - The Government's Vision for Mental Health
Care. Department of Health London.
Department of Health (2004) The Ten Essential Shared Capabilities - A Framework for the Whole of the
Mental Health Workforce. Department of Health, London.
Dickens, Geoff (2009) Mental health outcome measures in the age of recovery-based services. British
Journal of Nursing, 18: 940-943.
Dickerson, Faith B. (2006) Commentary: disquieting aspects of the recovery paradigm. Psychiatric
Services, 57: 647.
Dinniss, Stephen (2006) Recovery-oriented mental healthcare. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
189: 384.
Essock, Susan and Lloyd Sederer (2009) Editorial: understanding and measuring recovery. Schizophrenia
Bulletin, 35: 279-281.
Farkas, Marianne, Cheryl Gagne, William Anthony, and Judi Chamberlin (2005) Implementing recovery
oriented evidence based programs: identifying the critical dimensions. Community Mental Health
Journal, 41: 141-158.
Fisher, Daniel B. and Laurie Ahern (2002) Evidence-based practices and recovery. Psychiatric Services
53: 632-633.
Frank, Richard G. and Glied, Sherry A. (2006) Better But Not Well: Mental Health Policy in the USA Since
1950. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Frese, Frederick J. (1998) Advocacy, recovery, and the challenges of consumerism for schizophrenia.
Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 21: 233-249.
Frese, Frederick J., Jonathan Stanley, Ken Kress, and Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia (2001) Integrating evidencebased practices and the recovery model. Psychiatric Services, 52: 1462-1468.
Grob, Gerald N. (1997) The Mad Among Us. New York: Free Press.
Harding, Courtenay M., George W. Brooks, Takamaru Ashikaga, John S. Strauss, and Alan Breier (1987)
The Vermont longitudinal study of persons with severe mental illness, I: Methodology, study sample,
and overall status 32 years later. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144: 718-726.
Healy, David (2002) The Creation of Psychopharmacology. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hopper, Kim (2007) Rethinking social recovery in schizophrenia: What a capabilities approach might
offer. Social Science and Medicine, 65: 868-879.
Hopper, Kim (2008) A confusion of tongues, a reform on hold. Chronic Illness, 4: 307-308.
Jacobson, Nora (2001) Experiencing recovery: a dimensional analysis of recovery narratives. Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Journal, 24: 248-256.
Jacobson, Nora (2003) Defining recovery: an interactionist analysis of mental health policy development,
Wisconsin 1996-1999. Qualitative Health Research, 13: 378-393.
RECOVERY IN MENTAL
ILLNESS
487
Jacobson, Nora (2004) In Recovery: The Making of Mental Health Policy. Nashville: Vanderbilt University
Press.
Jacobson, Nora and Laurie Curtis (2000) Recovery as policy in mental services: strategies emerging from
the states. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 23: 333-341.
Jacobson, Nora and Dianne Greenley (2001) What is recovery? A conceptual model and explication.
Psychiatric Services, 52: 482-485.
Johnson, Shaun (2005) Misuse and abuse of 'recovery' by the psychiatric system. Mental Health
Today 37.
Jones, Kathleen (1993) Asylums and After: A Revised History of the Mental Health Services, from the
Early Eighteenth Century to the 1990s. London: Athalone Press.
Kartalova-O'Doherty
Yulia and Donna Tedstone Doherty (2010) Reconnecting with Ufe: Personal
Experiences of Recovering from Mental Health Problems in Ireland. HRB Research Series 8.
Dublin: Health Research Board.
Lamb, H. and Richard (1994) A century and a half of psychiatric rehabilitation in the United States.
Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 45: 1015-1020.
Leete, Esso (1989) How I perceive and manage my illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 15: 197-200.
Lester, Helen and Linda Gask (2006) Delivering medical care for patients with serious mental
illness or promoting a collaborative model of recovery? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 188:
401-402.
Liberman, Robert P., Alex Kopelowicz, Joseph Venture, and Daniel Gutkind (2002) Operational criteria
and factors related to recovery from schizophrenia. International Review of Psychiatry, 14:
256-272.
Liberman, Robert Paul and Alex Kopelowicz (2005) Recovery from schizophrenia: a concept in search of
Research. Psychiatric Services, 56: 735-742.
Lieberman, Jeffrey A., Robert E. Drake, Lloyd I. Sederer, Aysenil Belger, Richard Keefe, Diana Perkins,
and Scott Stroup (2008) Science and recovery in schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services, 59:
487-496.
Link, Bruce G., Elmer L. Struening, Sheree Neese-Todd, Sara Asmussen, and Jo Phelan (2001) The
consequences of stigma for the self-esteem of people with mental illnesses. Psychiatric Services,
52: 1621-1627.
Lovejoy, Marcia (1982) Expectations and the recovery process. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 9: 604-609.
Low, Abraham A. ([1991]1943) Mental Illness, Stigma and Self-Help. Glencoe, IL: Willett Publishing.
Lunt, Alan (2002) A theory of recovery. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services
40: 32-39.
Markowitz, Fred E. (2001) Modeling processes in recovery from mental illness: relationships
between symptoms, life satisfaction, and self-concept. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,
42: 64-79.
Mead, Sheryl and Mary Ellen Copeland (2000) What recovery means to us: consumers' perspectives.
Community Mental Health Journal, 36: 315-328.
Mueser, Kim T., Patrick W. Corrigan, David W. Hilton, Beth Tanzman, Annette Schaub, Susan Gingerich,
Susan M. Essock, Nick Tarrier, Bodie Morey, Suzanne Vogel-Scibilia, and Marvin I. Herz (2002) Illness
management and recovery: a review of the research. Psychiatric Services, 53: 1272-1284.
National Consensus Conference on Mental Health Recovery and Mental Health Systems Transformation
(2004) National Consensus Statement on Mental Health Recovery. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003) Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health
Care in America. Final Report. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS
Pub. No. SMA-03-3832.
Noordsy, Douglas, William Torrey, Kim Mueser, Shery Mead, Chris O'Keefe, and Lindy Fox (2002)
Recovery from severe mental illness: an intrapersonal and functional outcome definition. International
Review of Psychiatry, 14: 318-326.
488
THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ILLNESS
O'Connor, Frederica W. and Kathleen R. Delaney (2007) The recovery movement: defining
evidence-based processes. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 21: 172-175.
Onken, Steven J., Catherine M. Craig, Priscilla Ridgway, Ruth O. Ralph, and Judith, A. Cook (2007)
An analysis of the defintions and elements of recovery: a review of the literature. Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Journal, 31: 9-22.
Peyser, Herbert (2001) What is recovery? A commentary. Psychiatric Services, 52: 486-487.
Pilgrim, David (2008) 'Recovery' and current mental health policy. Chronic !IIness, 4: 295-304.
Pilgrim, David (2009) Recovery from mental health problems: scratching the surface without
ethnography. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23: 475-487.
Ralph, Ruth O. (2000) Review of recovery literature: A synthesis of a sample of literature. National
Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning (NTAC), National Association for State
Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD), Alexandria, VA.
Ramon, Shulamit, Bill Heay and Noel Renouf (2007) Recovery from mental illness as an emergent
concept and practice in Australia and the UK. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 53:
108-122.
Ridgway, Priscilla (2001) Restorying psychiatric disability: learning from first person recovery narratives.
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 24: 335-343.
Roberts, Glenn and Paul Wolfson (2004) The rediscovery of recovery: open to all. Advances in Psychiatric
Treatment, 10: 37-48.
Roe, David and Max Lachman (2005) The subjective experience of people with severe mental illness:
A potentially crucial piece of the puzzle. Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 42:
223-230.
Roe, David, Abraham Rudnick, and Kenneth J. Gill (2007) Commentary: the concept of 'being in
recovery'. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 3: 171-173.
Roe, David, Ilanit Hasson-Ohayon, Michelle P. Salyers, and Shlomo Kravetz (2009) A one year follow-up
of illness management and recovery: participants' accounts of its impact and uniqueness. Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Journal, 32: 285-291.
Rogers, Anne and David Pilgrim (2001) Mental Health Policy in Britain. London: Palgrave.
Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health (2003) Money for Mental Health: A Review of Public Spending on
Mental Health. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.
Schrank, Beate, Giovanni Stanghellini, and Mike Slade (2008) Hope in psychiatry: A review of the
literature. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 118: 421-433.
Scottish Recovery Network (2005) The Role and Potential Development of Peer Support Services.
Glasgow: Scottish Recovery Network.
Slade, Mike (2009) Personal Recovery and Mental !IIness: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stromwall, Layne K. and Donna Hurdle (2003) Psychiatric rehabilitation: An empowerment-based
approach to mental health services. Health and Social Work, 28: 206-213.
Tanenbaum, Sandra J. (2006) The role of 'evidence' in recovery from mental illness. Health Care Analysis,
14: 195-201.
Taylor, Susan and Francis Yuen (2008) Psychiatric rehabilitation and recovery: a journey in reframing
disability. Journal of Social Work in Disability and Rehabilitation, 7: 131-135.
Townsend, Wilma and Nicole Glasser (2003) Recovery: the heart and soul of treatment. Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Journal, 27: 83-86.
Tsuang, Ming T., Robert Woolson, and Jerome A. Fleming (1979) Long-term outcome of major
psychoses. I. Schizophrenia and affective disorders compared with psychiatrically symptom-free
surgical conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36: 1295-1301.
Unzicker, Rae (1989) On my own: A personal journey through madness and re-emergence. Psychosocial
Rehabilitation Journal, 13: 71-77.
Ware, Norma C, Kim Hopper, Toni Tugenberg, Barbara Dickey, and Daniel Fisher (2008) A theory of
social integration as quality of life. Psychiatric Services, 59: 27-32.
RECOVERY
IN MENTAL
ILLNESS
489
Warner, Richard (1994) Recovery from Schizophrenia: Psychiatry and Political Economy. New York:
Routledge.
Wisdom, Jennifer P, Kevin Bruce, Goal Auzeen Saedi, Teresa Weis, and Carla A Green (2008) 'Stealing
me from myself': Identity and recovery in personal accounts of mental illness. The Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42: 489-495.
Yanos, Philip T., Edward L. Knight, and David Roe (2007) Recognizing a role for structure and agency:
integrating sociological perspectives into the study of recovery from severe mental illness. In
W.R. Avison, J.D. McLeod, and B.A. Pescosolido (eds). Mental Health, Social Mirror. New York:
Springer Publishing, pp. 407-433.