Advertisement

Negotiating the Practical Meaning of Recovery in a Process of Implementation

An Empirical Investigation of How a Participatory-Inspired Research Approach to Implementation Might Facilitate a More Recovery-Oriented Practice: The Case of RENEW-DK
  • Michaela HoejEmail author
  • Katrine Schepelern Johansen
  • Birgitte Ravn Olesen
  • Sidse Arnfred
Original Article
  • 27 Downloads

Abstract

As implementation of recovery-oriented practices has proven difficult, this study investigates whether a participatory-inspired approach to implementing and adjusting a recovery-oriented model, RENEW-DK, might facilitate a more recovery-oriented practice among the professionals in public sector services. Ten narrative interviews with professionals was analyzed from a Science and Technology Studies perspective, and special attention was devoted to the concepts of distortion and stigmatization. Despite a one-year participatory process of model adjustment and implementation, professionals experienced RENEW-DK as a distortion and thus shaped their practice of RENEW-DK according to organizational requirements and professional beliefs instead of making their practice more recovery-oriented. The study calls attention to the need to acknowledge contradictions between intentions in general models and values in specific organizations with local norms and practices.

Keywords

Recovery-oriented practices Implementation Co-development Mental health Young adults Professionals Employment Education Psychiatry Narrative interviews 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would especially like to thank the young adults and professionals participating in this study. We would also like to thank Research Associate Professor JoAnne Malloy, Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire and co-developer of the RENEW model and collaborator in this project for providing training and assistance throughout implementation of RENEW.

Funding

This work was supported by the Intersectoral Research Unit, The Capital Region (Grant Numbers Pb-2014-5, P-2014-2-09); and The Health Foundation (Helsefonden) (Grant Number 2012B199).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

As stated, Michaela Hoej was employed by the two organizations in which this study was conducted. Otherwise, the Authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The project was approved by The Danish Data Protection Agency (journal number 03610 and ID-number: RHP-2015-006). The Regional Committee on Research Ethics was also contacted for approval (Protocol number: H-7-2014-FSP15), but the project was not liable to notification, because no biological material was included in the research. Hence, no approval was necessary. Furthermore, the Danish National Board of Health was contacted (Case number 2014111813), but the project was not liable for notification here either.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Statement of Human Rights

The study was conducted in accordance with the Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association (http://s3.amazonaws.com/rdcms-aaa/files/production/public/FileDownloads/pdfs/issues/policy-advocacy/upload/AAA-Ethics-Code-2009.pdf).

References

  1. Akrich, M. (1992). The de-scription of technical objects. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society, studies in sociotechnical change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alvesson, M. (2003). Methodology for close up studies—Struggling with closeness and closure. Higher Education,46(2), 167–193.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024716513774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amering, M., & Schmolke, M. (2009). Recovery in mental health—Reshaping scientific and clinical responsibilities. Oxford: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andreasen, J., Poulsen, S., Hoej, M., & Arnfred, S. (2019). ‘It is important for us to see the mentors as persons’—Participant experiences of a rehabilitation group. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being,14(1), 1632108.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2019.1632108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Anthony, W. A. (1993). Recovery from mental illness: The guiding vision of the mental health services system in the 1990s. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal,16(4), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borg, M., Karlsson, B., & Suzie Kim, H. (2010). Double helix of research and practice—Developing a practice model for crisis resolution and home treatment through participatory action research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being,5(1), 4647.  https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v5i1.4647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2002). Introduction: To classify is human In G. C. Bowker & S. L. Star (Eds.), Sorting things out, classification and its consequences (4. oplag ed., pp. 1–32). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bradbury, H., & Reason, P. (2003). Action research—An opportunity for revitalizing research purpose and practices. Qualitative Social Work,2(2), 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruns, E. J., Sather, A., Pullmann, M. D., & Stambaugh, L. F. (2011). National trends in implementing wraparound: Results from the state wraparound survey. Journal of Child and Family Studies,20(6), 726–735.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9535-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahill, C. (2007). Participatory data analysis. In S. Kindon, R. Pain, & M. Kesby (Eds.), Participatory action research approaches and methods connecting people, participation and place (pp. 181–187). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, A. E., & Star, S. L. (2005). Science, technology, and medicine studies. In H. Joas, G. Miller, R. Dingwall, & H. Joas (Eds.), Handbook of symbolic interactionism (pp. 539–574). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, J. M., & Waring, J. (2018). The transformative role of interaction rituals within therapeutic communities. Sociology of Health & Illness,40(8), 1277–1293.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunliffe, A. (2002). Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning. Management Learning.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507602331002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalgaard, L. G., Johannsen, L. V., Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2014). Differences as a potential vehicle of organizational development? Co-researching-on-action. In M. Kristiansen & J. Bloch-Poulsen (Eds.), Participation and power: In participatory research and action research. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  15. Danish Regions. (2014). Packages for anxiety and social phobia (Pakkeforløb for angst og social fobi). Retrieved November 3, 2016 from https://www.psykiatri-regionh.dk/vejledning-og-rettigheder/rettigheder/behandlingspakker/Documents/Pakkeforl%C3%B8b%20for%20angst%20og%20social%20fobi.pdf.
  16. Davidson, L. (1993). Story telling and schizophrenia: Using narrative structure in phenomenological research. The Humanistic Psychologist,21(2), 200–220.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.1993.9976919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davidson, L. (2003). Eliciting narratives. Living outside mental illness: Qualitative studies of recovery in schizophrenia (pp. 61–92). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Davidson, L., O’Connell, M. J., Tondora, J., Staeheli, M., & Evans, A. C. (2005). Recovery in serious mental illness: Paradigm shift or shibboleth? In L. Davidson, C. Harding, & L. Spaniol (Eds.), Recovery from severe mental illnesses: Research evidence and implications for practice (Vol. 1, pp. 5–26). Boston: Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation.Google Scholar
  19. Davidson, L., O’Connell, M., Tondora, J., Styron, T., & Kangas, K. (2006). Top ten concerns about recovery encountered in mental health system transformation. Psychiatric Services,57(5), 640–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davidson, L., & Strauss John, S. (1992). Sense of self in recovery from severe mental illness. British Journal of Medical Psychology,65(2), 131–145.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.1992.tb01693.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. De Laet, M., & Mol, A. (2000). The Zimbabwe bush pump: Mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science,30(2), 225–263.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030002002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delaney, K. (2012). Moving to a recovery framework of care: Focusing attention on process. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing,26, 165–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Derksen, M., Vikkelsø, S., & Beaulieu, A. (2012). Social technologies: Cross-disciplinary reflections on technologies in and from the social sciences. Theory & Psychology,22(2), 139–147.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311427593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Esin, C., Fathi, M., & Squire, C. (2013). Narrative analysis: The constructionist approach. In U. Lick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 203–216). London: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, Florida: Retrieved from (Accessed)Google Scholar
  26. Gilburt, H., Slade, M., Bird, V., Oduola, S., & Craig, T. K. J. (2013). Promoting recovery-oriented practice in mental health services: A quasi-experimental mixed-methods study. BMC Psychiatry,13, 167.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-167.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Hackett, E. J. (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hoej, M., Johansen, K. S., Olesen, B. R., & Arnfred, S. M. (2017). “Caught between a rock and a hard place”—Between discourses of empowerment and solicitude: Danish public sector service professionals’ discourses of nonattendance. Qualitative Health Research,27(11), 1686–1700.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317717962.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoej, M., Johansen, K. S., Olesen, B. R., & Arnfred, S. M. (submitted). Pitfalls and stepping stones in working with relationships and supportive networks in public sector services—Perspectives from young adults with mental health difficulties. forthcoming unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  30. Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2013). The constructionist analytics of interpretive practice. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (4th ed., pp. 253–289). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  31. Humphrey, C. (2013). Dilemmas in doing insider research in professional education. Qualitative Social Work,12(5), 572–586.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325012446006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jacobsen, N., & Curtis, L. (2000). Recovery as policy in mental health services: Strategies emerging from the states. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal,23(4), 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaeger, M., Konrad, A., Rueegg, S., & Rabenschlag, F. (2015). Patients’ subjective perspective on recovery orientation on an acute psychiatric unit. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry,69(3), 188–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jenkins, R. (2000). Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology. Current Sociology,48(3), 7–25.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392100048003003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johansen, K. S. (2018). Treatment of dual diagnosis in Denmark: Models for cooperation and positions of power. Qualitative Studies,5(2), 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karlsen, J., & Larrea, M. (2014). Territorial development and action research. Innovation through dialogue. Surrey: GOWER Applied Research.Google Scholar
  37. Karlsson, B., & Borg, M. (2017). Recovery—Tradisjoner, fornyelser og praksiser. Drammen: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  38. Korsbek, L. (2017). How to recover? Recovery in Denmark: A work in progress. Journal of Recovery in Mental Health,1(1), 25–33.Google Scholar
  39. Kragelund, L. (2007). The dilemmas of performing research within one’s own organization. Klinisk Sygepleje,21(1), 72–80.Google Scholar
  40. Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. LaPorte, T. M., Haber, M. G., & Malloy, J. M. (2014). Wraparound team composition, youth self-determination, and youth satisfaction in transition services. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research,43(4), 611–629.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-014-9434-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Law, J. (2008). On sociology and STS. Sociological Review,56(4), 623–649.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00808.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Le Boutillier, C., Leamy, M., Bird, V. J., Davidson, L., Williams, J., & Slade, M. (2011). What does recovery mean in practice? A qualitative analysis of international recovery-oriented practice guidance. Psychiatric Services,62(12), 1470–1476.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.001312011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Le Boutillier, C., Slade, M., Lawrence, V., Bird, V., Chandler, R., Farkas, M., et al. (2015). Competing priorities: Staff perspectives on supporting recovery. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research,42(4), 429–438.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0585-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lincoln, A. K., Borg, R., & Delman, J. (2015). Developing a community-based participatory research model to engage transition age youth using mental health service in research. Family & Community Health,38(1), 87–97.  https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lund, J. H. (2011). Kontekstbegrebet. In A. B. D. Bendixen & A. M. Villumsen (Eds.), Ude af sammenhæng, om professionelles arbejde med børn i udsatte positioner. Århus: Systime.Google Scholar
  47. Malloy, A. M. (2013). The RENEW model: Supporting transition-age youth with emotional and behavioral challenges. Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth,13(2), 38–48.Google Scholar
  48. Malloy, J. M., Drake, J., Cloutier, H., & Couture, D. (2012). RENEW facilitator’s manual. A secondary transition model for youth and young adults. Durham: Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  49. Mance, G. A. P., Mendelson, T. P., Byrd, B., III, Jones, J., & Tandon, D. P. (2010). Utilizing community-based participatory research to adapt a mental health intervention for African American emerging adults. Progress in Community Health Partnerships,4(2), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ness, O., Karlsson, B., Borg, M., Biong, S., Sundet, R., McCormack, B., et al. (2014). Towards a model for collaborative practice in community mental health care. Scandinavian Psychologist.  https://doi.org/10.15714/scandpsychol.1.e6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nielsen, A. J. (2010). Traveling technologies and transformations in health care. (PhD), Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  52. Olesen, B. R., & Nordentoft, H. M. (2013). Walking the talk?: A micro-sociological approach to the co-production of knowledge and power in action research. International Journal of Action Research,9(1), 67–94.Google Scholar
  53. Olesen, B. R., & Pedersen, C. H. (2012). Co-producing knowledge: Between othering, emotionality and dialogue. In L. Phillips, M. Kristiansen, M. Vehviläinen, & E. Gunnarsson (Eds.), Knowledge and power in collaborative research: A reflexive approach (pp. 124–152). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Park, M. M., Zafran, H., Stewart, J., Salsberg, J., Ells, C., Rouleau, S., et al. (2014). Transforming mental health services: A participatory mixed methods study to promote and evaluate the implementation of recovery-oriented services. Implementation Science,9(1), 119.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0119-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Ramon, S., Shera, W., Healy, B., Lachman, M., & Renouf, N. (2009). The rediscovered concept of recovery in mental illness. International Journal of Mental Health,38(2), 106–126.  https://doi.org/10.2753/IMH0020-7411380205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rapport, N. (2018). Conceptualizing the ‘distortion of human social life’. In N. Rapport (Ed.), Distortion, social processes beyond the structured and systemic (pp. 3–25). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  57. Rowe, M., Clayton, A., Benedict, P., Bellamy, C., Antunes, K., Miller, R., et al. (2012). Going to the source: Creating a citizenship outcome measure by community-based participatory research methods. Psychiatric Services,63(5), 445–450.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201100272.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Sells, D., Topor, A., & Davidson, L. (2004). Generating coherence out of chaos: Examples of the utility of empathic bridges in phenomenological research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,35(2), 253–271.  https://doi.org/10.1163/1569162042652164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shepherd, G., Boardman, J., & Burns, M. (2010). Implementing recovery—A methology for organizational change, policy paper. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.Google Scholar
  60. Shepherd, G., Boardman, J., & Slade, M. (2008). Policy paper. Making recovery a reality. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.Google Scholar
  61. Shera, W., & Ramon, S. (2013). Challenges in the implementation of recovery-oriented mental health policies and services. International Journal of Mental Health,42(2–3), 17–42.  https://doi.org/10.2753/IMH0020-7411420202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Slade, M. (2010). Measuring recovery in mental health services. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences,47(3), 206.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Slade, M., Amering, M., Farkas, M., Hamilton, B., Hagan, M., Panther, G., et al. (2014). Uses and abuses of recovery: Implementing recovery-oriented practices in mental health systems. World Psychiatry,13(1), 12–20.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20084.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Star, S. L. (1996). Working together: Symbolic interactionism, activity theory, and information systems. In D. Middleton & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 296–318). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Star, S., & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),8(1), 9–30.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008651105359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Storm, M., & Edwards, A. (2013). Models of user involvement in the mental health context: Intentions and implementation challenges. Psychiatric Quarterly,84(3), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Strauss, J. (2011). Subjectivity and severe psychiatric disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin,37(1), 8–13.  https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbq116.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Sundhedsstyrelsen. (2009). National strategi for psykiatri. Copenhagen: Retrieved September 26, 2018, from http://www.sst.dk/~/media/EE63F63540B4423989EB160335398B84.ashx.
  69. Vikkelsø, S., & Vinge, S. (2004). Hverdagens arbejde og organisering i sundhedsvæsenet. Copenhagen: Handelshøjskolens Forlag.Google Scholar
  70. Vohnsen, N. H. (2017). The absurdity of bureaucracy—How implementation works. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Waldemar, A. K., Arnfred, S. M., Petersen, L., & Korsbek, L. (2016). Recovery-oriented practice in mental health inpatient settings: A literature review. Psychiatric Services,67, 595–601.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201400469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Waldemar, A. K., Esbensen, B. A., Korsbek, L., Petersen, L., & Arnfred, S. (2018a). Recovery-oriented practice: Participant observations of the interactions between patients and health professionals in mental health inpatient settings. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing,28, 318–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Waldemar, A. K., Esbensen, B. A., Korsbek, L., Petersen, L., & Arnfred, S. (2018b). Recovery orientation in mental health inpatient settings: Inpatient experiences? International Journal of Mental Health Nursing,27(3), 1177–1187.  https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12434.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice,7(3), 312–323.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michaela Hoej
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katrine Schepelern Johansen
    • 2
  • Birgitte Ravn Olesen
    • 3
  • Sidse Arnfred
    • 4
  1. 1.Competence Centre for Rehabilitation and Recovery, Mental Health Centre BallerupThe Mental Health Services of the Capital Region of DenmarkBallerupDenmark
  2. 2.Competence Centre for Dual Diagnoses, Mental Health Centre Sct. HansThe Mental Health Services of the Capital Region of DenmarkRoskildeDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Communication and ArtsRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  4. 4.Mental Health Services West, Region ZealandSlagelseDenmark

Personalised recommendations