Professionals’ perceptions of the Mental Health Recovery Star
| Date | 29 November 2013 |
| Published date | 29 November 2013 |
| Pages | 194-203 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/MHRJ-04-2013-0015 |
| Author | Anna Tickle,Natalie Cheung,Clare Walker |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health |
Professionals’ perceptions of the
Mental Health Recovery Star
Anna Tickle, Natalie Cheung and Clare Walker
Dr Anna Tickle is a Clinical
Psychologist, based at
Nottinghamshire Healthcare
NHS Trust, Newark, UK.
Natalie Cheung is a
Psychology Student, based
at Loughborough University,
Loughborough, UK.
Dr Clare Walker is a Clinical
Psychologist, based at
Nottinghamshire Healthcare
NHS Trust, Worksop, UK.
Abstract
Purpose – The Mental Health Recovery Star (MHRS) has received focus at a national policy level in
consideration of outcome measurement within mental health services. The purpose of this paper is to seek
the views of mental health professionals about its use within clinical practice.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper employed a qualitative, exploratory design to interview 12
participants. Thematic analysis was used.
Findings – Four main themes were identified: “the utility of the Recovery Star”;“not for everybody”;“service
user involvement”; and “the status of the Recovery Star within the Trust”. A range of factors was found to
influence participants’ use of the tool with service users.
Research limitations/implications – The paper involved a small number of participants due to a low
response rate. Future research could include larger studies and more detailed exploration of factors
identified as limiting the use of the MHRS.
Practical implications – The MHRS is a potentially useful tool but its limitations and the influence of
organisational context must be considered as part of any plan to systematically implement its use within services.
Originality/value – To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of the views of mental health
professionals about the MHRS. As it is professionals who are likely to determinewhether and how the tool is
used, the paper is seen as a valuable initial investigation.
Keywords Thematic analysis, Mental Health Recovery Star, Outcome measurement
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The terms “recovery” and “recovery-orientated practice” are increasingly used in mental
health services throughout the UK and beyond (Ramon et al., 2007). Despite their widespread
use, definitions vary (Royal College of Psychiatrists/Social Care Institute for Excellence/Care
Services Improvement Partnership, 2007). Anthony (1993) describes recovery as “living a
satisfying, hopeful, and contributing life even with limitations caused by illness” (p. 527). Moving
towards a formal conceptual model, Jacobson and Greenley (2001) found recovery to consist of
internal (hope, healing, empowerment and connection) and external (a positive culture of
healing, human rights and recovery-orientated services) conditions. Rather than further
research seeking conceptual clarity, it has been suggested more useful to address service-level
questions, such as whether people using a service make recovery gains over time (Leamy et al.,
2011). Still, confusing and even contradictory uses of the term (Davidson et al., 2006) create
significant challenges to measuring “recovery”.
Existing outcome measures appear difficult for service users to use and clinicians seem
unconvinced about the effectiveness of routine outcome measurement (Slade et al., 2006).
However, an organisational culture increasingly focused on evidence-based practice and
influenced by initiatives such as “Payment by Results” (Department of Health, 2012), urges
a need for objective measurement of recovery. Serious consideration is being given to how
to define and measure success or failure within services, with calls to develop local service user
The authors thank the participants
for taking the time to offer their
views and to service managers for
supporting the research.
PAGE 194
j
MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW JOURNAL
j
VOL. 18 NO. 4 2013, pp. 194-203, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1361-9322 DOI 10.1108/MHRJ-04-2013-0015
To continue reading
Request your trial