ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
One or Many Recoveries? Recoveries in the Plural for a Better Understanding of One's Healing Journey.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. 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.
- Recovery in Mental Health: A Synthesis of the Perspectives of Experts by Experience, Recovery-Oriented Professionals and Family Caregivers in Relation to the CHIME and SPICE Frameworks.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Peer Support Workers in Mental Health Care: Plural Positionings Beyond Transformation and Assimilation Dichotomy.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- How to Tell a Recovery Story 'Professionally'? Issues Related to the Transformation of Personal Stories During a Training for Becoming a Peer Support Worker.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince the 60s, the recovery-oriented approach has greatly influenced mental health policy and practice, and much research has been devoted to exploring it. In the face of a generic definition of the 'recovery' construct, to which many articles refer, a closer examination of the literature reveals a plurality of theories and ways about how changes related to the recovery occur and how to evaluate them.
aimsThis narrative review explores the different definitions of recovery available in the literature, by investigating the adjectives that qualify it and the theoretical construct the adjective refers to.
methodFrom the online databases PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar and PsycINFO, 43 articles were selected for the review.
resultsSeven definitions of recovery emerged, each supported by specific theoretical perspectives: clinical, personal, narrative, social, family, cultural and relational recovery. The adjectives refer to theoretical frameworks often very distant from each other and in epistemological competition; nevertheless, many papers assume a reconcilability and possible integration. The authors critically discuss the advantages and risks of considering such different constructs as complementary.
conclusionsKeeping theoretical descriptions and models of healing open and plural means enabling mental health practitioners not to monologise discourses of change by imposing their point of view on users. It means supporting users to authentically seek their healing pathways without conforming to clinicians' expectations. It also means abandoning misleading and naive simplifications and strictly using the appropriate terms relevant to the specific healing construct that researchers refer to from time to time. This is particularly important when it comes to the relational component, which seems to be receiving more and more attention in the literature, and about which there is more confusion. PATIENT OR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The study involved two experts by experience, or peer support specialists, in a more than active role as components of the research team. They participated equally with the other team members in all phases of the work: the design and conduct of the study, the discussion of findings and advice about implications and dissemination.
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.