PURPOSE: Mental health services remain largely set up to improve patient outcomes through symptom alleviation, but patient views of recovery are broader than symptom remission. Clinicians influence the nature of treatment patients received, but their views about recovery remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature examining staff views about psychosocial aspects of recovery in psychosis. METHOD: We systematically searched the PsycInfo, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases. Of the 6,225 articles identified, 15 met inclusion criteria for review. RESULTS: The studies reviewed showed a relatively inconsistent picture. Although there was evidence of staff endorsing psychosocial views of recovery, the majority of studies suggested staff endorsed biomedical models of recovery in psychosis and emphasized the importance of pharmacological, over psychosocial, and interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed studies showed that biomedical views about recovery prevail among multidisciplinary mental health staff, despite recent advancements in patients' broader conceptualization of recovery. Clinical implications are discussed. PRACTITIONER POINTS: The psychosocial model of recovery has become widely accepted and now underpins most international recovery policies. Despite a dearth in research, existing studies indicate that mental health staff subscribe to biomedical models of recovery in psychosis, with more emphasis on pharmacological, over psychosocial, and interventions. Robust research targeting staff views about recovery in psychosis is needed.
PURPOSE: Mental health services remain largely set up to improve patient outcomes through symptom alleviation, but patient views of recovery are broader than symptom remission. Clinicians influence the nature of treatment patients received, but their views about recovery remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature examining staff views about psychosocial aspects of recovery in psychosis. METHOD: We systematically searched the PsycInfo, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases. Of the 6,225 articles identified, 15 met inclusion criteria for review. RESULTS: The studies reviewed showed a relatively inconsistent picture. Although there was evidence of staff endorsing psychosocial views of recovery, the majority of studies suggested staff endorsed biomedical models of recovery in psychosis and emphasized the importance of pharmacological, over psychosocial, and interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed studies showed that biomedical views about recovery prevail among multidisciplinary mental health staff, despite recent advancements in patients' broader conceptualization of recovery. Clinical implications are discussed. PRACTITIONER POINTS: The psychosocial model of recovery has become widely accepted and now underpins most international recovery policies. Despite a dearth in research, existing studies indicate that mental health staff subscribe to biomedical models of recovery in psychosis, with more emphasis on pharmacological, over psychosocial, and interventions. Robust research targeting staff views about recovery in psychosis is needed.
Authors: Mimosa Luigi; Filippo Rapisarda; Marc Corbière; Luigi De Benedictis; Anne-Marie Bouchard; Amélie Felx; Massimo Miglioretti; Amal Abdel-Baki; Alain Lesage Journal: Can Med Educ J Date: 2020-09-23