Is your doctor measuring your mental health recovery? Even know there is such a thing?
The Mental Health Recovery Measure Can Be Used to Assess Aspects of Both Customer-Based and Service-Based Recovery in the Context of Severe Mental Illness
- 1Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisboa, Portugal
- 2Champalimaud Research, Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisboa, Portugal
- 3Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Ocidental, Lisboa, Portugal
- 4Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, NOVA School of Medicine – Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
- 5Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Centro Hospitalar Cova da Beira, Covilhã, Portugal
Introduction
Recovery is a concept that cuts across medicine, with
particular importance in the context of chronic disease. Clinical
definitions of recovery are generally related to reduction or remission
of symptoms and return to pre-morbid or full levels of functioning.
However, these definitions are variable according to disease or disorder
and, frequently, consensus definitions are difficult to obtain. In the
contexts of clinical psychiatry, mental health policy and psychiatric
research, the concept of recovery from severe mental illness (SMI) has
become increasingly relevant (Slade, 2010). This is particularly true for conditions such as schizophrenia, where recovery is very heterogeneous (Lieberman et al., 2008),
since there are arguments that stigma and negative stereotyping are
self-fulfilling attitudes directly resulting from a misconception of a
very limited potential for recovery (Liberman and Kopelowicz, 2005).
The conceptualization of recovery has been challenging
for psychiatric disorders, in part because different groups use the term
differently. Clinical psychiatry has traditionally defined recovery
based on symptoms and several dimensions of function (service-based,
objective, or clinical recovery – SBR), while consumer movements
advocate for recovery to be defined as the process that involves
overcoming mental illness, regaining self-control and establishing a
meaningful and fulfilling life (customer-based, subjective, or personal
recovery – CBR) (Schrank and Slade, 2007).
In patients suffering from schizophrenia, recovery has many predicting
factors, including socio-demographic variables, among others (Westermeyer and Harrow, 1984; Wieselgren et al., 1996).
Specifically, age and functional status at onset, better cognitive
functioning at stabilization, shorter duration of psychosis and early
remission seem to best predict functional SBR (Robinson et al., 2004; Lambert et al., 2008).
While there is less data for CBR, it has been proposed that subjective
well-being at onset and marital satisfaction are associated with
increased subjective recovery (Lambert et al., 2008; Tse et al., 2014).
In any case, the concept of CBR has gained increasing relevance, given
the movements toward promotion of patient-centered medicine and patient
engagement in healthcare (Barello et al., 2012; Mullins et al., 2012; Domecq et al., 2014; Richards et al., 2015).
Unfortunately, lack of precision in the definition of
these constructs and their dimensions has lead to variable use of these
terms within the literature. In fact, CBR has been directly or
indirectly equated to other measures of subjective experience, such as
quality-of-life (QoL) (Roe et al., 2011), and the degree to which CBR and SBR are separable constructs is not consensual (Resnick et al., 2004; Andresen et al., 2010; Lloyd et al., 2010; Roe et al., 2011, 2012; Norman et al., 2013; Stanhope et al., 2013).
To address this question empirically, as we propose here, stringent
conceptualizations of these recovery constructs have been considered by
several authors. Specifically it has been proposed that the distinction
between CBR and SBR should result from the methods according to which
the two constructs and their respective measurement instruments are
defined and derived (Campbell-Orde et al., 2005; Andresen et al., 2010).
According to these conceptualizations, CBR is considered to be recovery
defined by users/patients and measured by instruments developed
according to the accounts of users/patients (e.g., focus groups,
qualitative analysis of patient interviews). SBR, on the other hand, is
recovery defined by service providers and experts, and is measured using
instruments developed according to the expertise of service providers
and experts (Schrank and Slade, 2007).
Nevertheless, this approach to distinguish recovery constructs is
questionable, and there has been insufficient empirical work to support
the distinction between the two.
Here, we set out to clarify the relationship between CBR
and SBR constructs in a population of patients with SMI. Since there are
no validated instruments for measurement of CBR in Portuguese patients
with SMI, we initially translated and validated the Mental Health
Recovery Measure (MHRM) (Bullock and Young, 2003; Young and Bullock, 2005)
for use in this patient population. This instrument was chosen because
it is one of only two self-rated measures of CBR according to the
stringent definition presented above (Campbell-Orde et al., 2005; Andresen et al., 2010),
i.e., it was developed according to the accounts of service-users.
Furthermore, the MHRM has several versions with excellent psychometric
properties (Bullock and Young, 2003; Young and Bullock, 2005; Chang et al., 2013; Armstrong et al., 2014) and has been successfully translated and validated into other languages (van Nieuwenhuizen et al., 2014).
Once this instrument was validated, we proceeded to compare
customer-based and service-based recovery and clarify their differential
relationship with other constructs, namely needs and subjective QoL.
The four constructs were assessed simultaneously using either
clinician-reported (SBR and needs) and/or self-reported (CBR, needs and
subjective QoL) measures.
No comments:
Post a Comment