Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37849003›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of mental health systems2023

A systematic review of measures of the personal recovery orientation of mental health services and staff.

Mary Leamy, Una Foye, Anne Hirrich, Dagfin Bjørgen, Josh Silver, Alan Simpson, Madeline Ellis, Karl Johan-Johanson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of mental health systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Resilience enhancement interventions for disaster rescue workers: a systematic review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. "Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mary LeamyFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK. mary.leamy@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6396-1410
Una FoyeFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3414-2854
Anne HirrichKBT Competence Center for lived experience and service development, Trondheim, Norway.
Dagfin BjørgenKBT Competence Center for lived experience and service development, Trondheim, Norway.
Josh Silver, London, UK.
Alan SimpsonFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3286-9846
Madeline EllisFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Karl Johan-JohansonKBT Competence Center for lived experience and service development, Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis review aimed to update and extend the Williams and colleagues 2012 systematic review of measures of recovery-orientation of mental health services by examining whether any of the specific knowledge gaps identified in this original review had subsequently been addressed.

methodsA systematic review using CINAHL, ASSIA, Embase, PsycINFO, Medline and other sources, searched from 2012 until 2021. The conceptualisation of recovery and recovery-orientation of services was explored. Psychometric properties of measures were evaluated using quality criteria and according to ease of use.

resultsFourteen measures assessing aspects of the recovery orientation of services and staff were identified, of which ten met the eligibility. Psychometric properties were evaluated, and conceptualisations of recovery and recovery-orientation of services investigated.

conclusionAfter over a decade of research in the field of recovery outcome measurement, there remains a lack of a single gold-standard measure of recovery-orientation of mental health services. There is a need for researchers to develop a new gold standard measure of recovery-orientation of services that is psychometrically valid and reliable, demonstrates sensitivity to change and is easy to use. It needs to show a good fit to an underpinning conceptual model/ framework of both personal recovery and recovery-oriented services and/or systems, with different versions for stakeholders at each level of an organisation or system.

Indexed as

MeasureMental health services.RecoveryReliabilitySystematic reviewValidity

Identifiers

PMID37849003
PMCPMC10580616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.