Assessing the value of existing recovery measures for routine use in Australian mental health services

Burgess, Philip, Pirkis, Jane, Coombs, Tim and Rosen, Alan (2011) Assessing the value of existing recovery measures for routine use in Australian mental health services. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 45 4: 267-280. doi:10.3109/00048674.2010.549996


Author Burgess, Philip
Pirkis, Jane
Coombs, Tim
Rosen, Alan
Title Assessing the value of existing recovery measures for routine use in Australian mental health services
Journal name Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0004-8674
1440-1614
Publication date 2011-04
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.3109/00048674.2010.549996
Volume 45
Issue 4
Start page 267
End page 280
Total pages 14
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher Informa Healthcare
Collection year 2012
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Object: The concept of recovery has been recognized as important in the treatment of mental illness. A number of specific instruments exist which are designed to: (i) measure recovery at an individual level; and (ii) assess the recovery orientation of services. The current review aimed to identify these and evaluate their potential for routine use in Australian public sector mental health services.

Method: We identified potential instruments by drawing on existing reviews, searching MEDLINE and PsycINFO, and consulting with experts. We used a hierarchical criterion-based approach to assess whether given instruments might be candidates for measuring recovery in the Australian context.

Results: We identified 33 instruments: 22 designed to measure individuals’ recovery and 11 designed to assess the recovery orientation of services (or providers). Four of the former (Recovery Assessment Scale; Illness Management and Recovery Scales; Stages of Recovery Instrument; Recovery Process Inventory) and four of the latter (Recovery Oriented Systems Indicators Measure; Recovery Self Assessment; Recovery Oriented Practices Index; Recovery Promotion Fidelity Scale) were identified as promising candidates for routine use in Australian public sector mental health services.

Conclusions: Further work is required, however, to determine which, if any, might best be used for this purpose; the possibility that modifications to existing instruments or the development of new instruments might be required should not be ruled out. It might be desirable to invest in two instruments: one designed to measure individuals’ recovery and one designed to measure the recovery orientation of services. If Australia were to go down this path, it would make sense to align indicators in each as far as possible, and to ensure that they were consistent with existing endeavours aimed at monitoring and improving recovery-focused aspects of service quality.
Keyword Measures
Mental health services
Recovery
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2012 Collection
School of Public Health Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 44 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 56 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 06 Sep 2011, 15:41:18 EST by Geraldine Fitzgerald on behalf of School of Public Health