ReviewBJPsych open2025
Personal recovery in mental health difficulties in people with experience of homelessness: qualitative systematic review.
Review in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the complex challenges facing people experiencing homelessness, existing mental health recovery models are probably insufficient for this population.
aimsTo investigate qualitative accounts of mental health personal recovery in people with experience of homelessness, and to adapt the widely adopted connectedness, hope, identity, meaning and empowerment (CHIME) model of personal recovery to better represent the experiences of this population.
methodPROSPERO registration no. CRD42023366842. A systematic review identified qualitative studies investigating first-person accounts of mental health personal recovery in people with experience of homelessness. Nine databases were searched: CINAHL, SCOPUS, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, ASSIA and Social Services Abstracts. Risk of bias was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Studies Checklist. Included studies underwent 'best fit' framework synthesis, comprising deductive analysis using the CHIME first- and second-order themes, as well as inductive analysis to capture aspects not covered by the
resultsThe review expanded the CHIME model and identified the following recovery processes in this population: security and stability; encouragement and hope; constructing identity; understanding and meaning; relationships and connectedness; and empowerment and dual recovery (SECURED). Importantly, security and stability were identified as a necessary prerequisite for the other recovery processes. Challenges within each recovery process were also identified.
conclusionsSECURED offers a transdiagnostic framework to support understanding of mental health personal recovery in the context of homelessness. Findings support the Housing First model of service provision. However, findings also highlight that housing alone is not sufficient and that the other processes must also be supported.
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.