Models and frameworks of mental health recovery: a scoping review of the available literature

Abstract

Background

The recovery approach involves providing a holistic and integrated service that is centered on and adapts to the aspirations and needs of consumers, who are seen as the expert on their health and well-being. Evidence is needed to address the current ambiguities related to the concept of recovery and its application.

Aim

A scoping review was conducted to identify papers describing theories, models, and frameworks of recovery to delineate the central domains of recovery.

Methods

Three literature search strategies were used: electronic database searching; hand-searching of key journals; and a reference list review of included papers. Inclusion criteria outlined theories, models and frameworks developed to support consumers' recovery and those supporting mental health professionals (MHPs) to deliver recovery-oriented services.

Results

Twelve studies (eleven articles and one book) were included in the review. The dimensions of recovery were synthesized into a framework named the Consolidated Framework for Recovery-oriented Services (CFRS). There are three domains within the framework: mechanisms/strategies; recovery as an internal process; and recovery as an external process. Each of these domains, as well as their relationships, are discussed.

Conclusions

The CFRS can be used by practitioners, researchers, funders, and collaborative members to conceptualize, implement, and evaluate recovery-oriented services.

Keywords:

• Mental health recovery
• recovery
• models
• frameworks
• dimensions
• scoping review

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Disclosure statement

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors are responsible for the content and writing of this article. This study is a scoping review. The PRISMA-ScR (Tricco et al., 2018) guidelines and Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework were used in conducting the study and preparation of the manuscript. Regarding the study’s registration, PROSPERO does not accept the registration of scoping reviews protocols. Therefore, our review protocol has not been published with PROSPERO.

Acknowledgement

The lead author is supported by a University of New England International Postgraduate Research Award.