ArticleBMJ open2022
Mapping mad maps and recovery tools developed by mental health service users and survivors of psychiatry: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-prioritization of mental health recovery outcomes and scales for community mental health centers in Peru.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of a Spanish version of the Maryland Assessment of Recovery Scale (MARS-12).PloS one · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of a recovery workshop implemented in community mental health services in Catalonia (Spain): study protocol for a non-randomized controlled trial.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince 1997, several tools based on the experiences of users and survivors of psychiatry have been developed with the goal of promoting self-determination in recovery, empowerment and well-being.
objectivesThe aims of this study were to identify these tools and their distinctive features, and to know how they were created, implemented and evaluated.
methodThis work was conducted in accordance with a published Scoping Review protocol, following the Arksey and O'Malley approach and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Five search strategies were used, including contact with user and survivor networks, academic database searching (Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, SCOPUS, PubMed and Web of Science), grey literature searching, Google Scholar searching and reference harvesting. We focused on tools, elaborated by users and survivors, and studies reporting the main applications of them. The searches were performed between 21 July and 22 September 2022. Two approaches were used to display the data: descriptive analysis and thematic analysis.
resultsSix tools and 35 studies were identified, most of them originating in the USA and UK. Thematic analysis identified six goals of the tools: improving wellness, navigating crisis, promoting recovery, promoting empowerment, facilitating mutual support and coping with oppression. Of the 35 studies identified, 34 corresponded to applications of the Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP). All of them, but one, evaluated group workshops implementations. The most common objective was to evaluate symptom improvement. Only eight studies included users and survivors as part of the research team.
conclusionsOnly the WRAP has been widely disseminated and investigated. Despite the tools were designed to be implemented by peers, it seems they have been usually implemented without them as trainers. Even when these tools are not aimed to promote clinical recovery, in practice the most disseminated recovery tool is being used in this way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.