 |
| Consumer Descriptions – Psychological Recovery |
Consumers’ written accounts of their experiences rarely offered a definition of recovery per se. Indeed, attempts at eliciting a definition of recovery from consumers have been fraught with difficulty. In one qualitative study, volunteers from an ex-patients’ support group, were interviewed to investigate the process and experience of recovery. Although the participants had identified themselves as recovered, they tended to see themselves as ‘survivors’, rather than recovered (Whitwell, 1999).
Ongoing problems that they experienced included continuing symptoms, reduced tolerance of stress, stigma and a restricted lifestyle. Participants commented: ‘Yes, but I will never be the same person again’; ‘I have a made a good recovery, but I wouldn’t say I have recovered. As to making a full recovery, I don’t know if you ever do’; and ‘I do consider that I have recovered, but I think it will take a little longer to forget’ (Whitwell, 1999, p. 621). Two issues could be coming into play here. Perhaps these participants had not recovered in the consumer-movement’s sense of the word. Alternatively, they are using different implicit definitions of recovery. When Tooth, Kalyanansundaram and Glover (1997) attempted to elicit a definition from participants – all of whom had identified themselves as recovered – they found that many had not even thought about the term prior to taking part in the study. Many participants were uncomfortable with the notion ‘recovery’ and preferred to think of themselves as ‘getting on with life’ (Tooth et al., 2003). Still other consumers prefer alternative terms such as ‘healing’ or ‘transformation’, which they feel better communicates that they have grown through the experience, rather than having merely returned to some former state (Prior, 2000; Ralph, 2000a). Some consumers, however, have written articles that offer a definition of what recovery means for them. These quotes from consumer articles capture the essence of recovery:
The need is to meet the challenge of the disability and to re-establish a new and valued sense of integrity and purpose within and beyond the limits of the disability; the aspiration to live, work and love in a community in which one makes a significant contribution. (Deegan, 1988, p. 54)
It was being able to live in the community, to be able to work, to be accepted by myself and by others, it was taking responsibility for myself, it was learning how my mental illness was hurting people that loved me, it was a willingness to change myself to become all that I wanted to be. It was accepting the illness, but working towards health.
(Schmook, 1994, p. 3)
These descriptions do not fit flawlessly into any of the three models described above. They clearly describe something that transcends a medical cure. They do not speak of accepting limitations imposed by a permanent disability. On the other hand, they do not make any claims regarding the aetiology of mental illness, as each of the other models imply. What they describe is recovery from the catastrophic effects of the illness (Anthony, 1993). They describe a change in attitude towards themselves, their lives and the illness itself.
What consumers are describing is psychological recovery. And this is the term we have adopted tomean the recovery movement’s definition. Other terms have been used to differentiate between the consumer meaning and the traditional medical meaning of recovery. For example, in a review of the literature, Slade (2009) made the distinction between ‘clinical’ and ‘personal’ recovery. Davidson and colleagues (Davidson and Roe, 2007; Davidson et al, 2008), distinguished between ‘recovery in mental illness’, referring to reclaiming a full life whilst continuing to experience symptoms of mental illness, and ‘recovery from mental illness’ i.e. clinical recovery. Psychological recovery is similar to ‘personal recovery’ and the notion of ‘recovery in mental illness’, in that they are all different from ‘clinical recovery’.
Psychological recovery differs, however, in its specific emphasis on the psychological processes. The claim here is not that personal recovery or the notion of recovery in mental illness are necessarily problematic, rather that they have a slightly different focus.
What consumers are describing is psychological recovery. And this is the term we have adopted tomean the recovery movement’s definition. Other terms have been used to differentiate between the consumer meaning and the traditional medical meaning of recovery. For example, in a review of the literature, Slade (2009) made the distinction between ‘clinical’ and ‘personal’ recovery. Davidson and colleagues (Davidson and Roe, 2007; Davidson et al, 2008), distinguished between ‘recovery in mental illness’, referring to reclaiming a full life whilst continuing to experience symptoms of mental illness, and ‘recovery from mental illness’ i.e. clinical recovery. Psychological recovery is similar to ‘personal recovery’ and the notion of ‘recovery in mental illness’, in that they are all different from ‘clinical recovery’.
Psychological recovery differs, however, in its specific emphasis on the psychological processes. The claim here is not that personal recovery or the notion of recovery in mental illness are necessarily problematic, rather that they have a slightly different focus.
