Recovery and intellectual disabilities: a review
| Pages | 192-198 |
| Published date | 13 July 2012 |
| Date | 13 July 2012 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/20441281211236625 |
| Author | Emily Handley,Olivia Southwell,Julie Steel |
| Subject Matter | Education,Health & social care |
Recovery and intellectual disabilities:
a review
Emily Handley, Olivia Southwell and Julie Steel
Abstract
Purpose – Given the increased prevalence of mental health problems amongst people with intellectual
disabilities, it seems pertinent to consider how the recovery approach could potentially benefit practice
within mental health services for people with intellectual disabilities. This paper seeks to explore the
similarities between recovery principles and existing approaches in services for people with intellectual
disabilities; it also aims to reflect on the potential barriers to the explicit uptake of the ‘‘recovery’’
approach in this context.
Design/methodology/approach – The presence and implementation of ‘‘recovery’ ’ approaches within
mental health services for people with intellectual disabilities are reviewed. This is achieved through an
examination of existing practices that could be described as recovery oriented, along with reflections on
how these relate to the recovery approach. Questions are raised regarding whether practices can be
regarded as ‘‘recovery oriented’’, without first consulting service users.
Findings – Further consideration is needed about the extent to which mental health services for people
with intellectual disabilities are recovery oriented and how recovery would be defined amongstpeople
with intellectual disabilities.
Research limitations/implicat ions – It is suggested that further research using qual itative
methodology is conducted, to enable the voice of service users to be heard.
Originality/value – The paper is one of the first to explore the relevance of the recovery approach to
people with intellectual disabilities. Given the increasing emphasis on recovery approaches within
mainstream services, it seems vital to give consideration to the potential for its meaningful application to
people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems.
Keywords Intellectual disabilities, Learning disabilities, Recovery, Person centred planning,
Normalization, Service philosophy, Mental health, Mental health services, United Kingdom
Paper type General review
Introduction
The concept of recovery as an underpinning ethos for mental health services has gained a
lot of support in recent years (e.g. New Horizons; Department of Health (DOH), 2009a).
Whilst the application of this ethos has gained momentum within mainstream mental health
services its applicability to different service settings and client groups is less apparent.
This recent emphasis on recovery has led us, as Clinical Psychologists working within mental
health services for people with intellectual disabilities, to reflect on how this approach lends
itself to this context and the clients with whom we work.
A recovery approach is said to emphasise an individual’s life story and personal values and
supports these in a way that strengthens resilience (Roberts and Hollins, 2007), as demonstrated
by the emerging literature from the last decade: e.g. Journey to Recovery (DOH, 2001b);
The Rediscovery of Recovery: Open to All (Roberts and Wolfson, 2004, 2007); Making Recovery
a Reality (Shepherd et al., 2008). Having reviewed existing literature it is apparent that the
emphasis has been on recovery-oriented practice within mainstream mental health services
PAGE 192
j
ADVANCES IN MENTALHEALTH AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES
j
VOL. 6 NO. 4 2012, pp. 192-198, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2044-1282 DOI10.110 8/20441281211236625
Emily Handley and
Olivia Southwell are Clinical
Psychologists based in the
Mental Health and Learning
Disabilities Service,
South London and
Maudsley Foundation Trust,
London, UK.
Julie Steel is a Clinical
Psychologists based at
Learning Disability Inpatient
Services, Kent and Medway
Partnership Trust,
West Malling, UK.
The authors would like to thank
Dr Helen Quigley and Dr Karin
Fuchs for their comments on
previous versions of the paper.
To continue reading
Request your trial