Jump to content

Talk:Recovery model

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Recovery approach)

NPOV

[edit]

Weasel words? Straw men? Something seems odd here.

"In the U.S. self-help, family members, advocacy groups, NIHM, the Rehabilitation Services Administration, and many state agencies, however psychiatric rehabilitation continues to be of little interest to university educators of mental health professionals"
"Attempts are being made by some people and organizations to transform the mental health system to a recovery-based one, with expanded choices of recovery-based services and supports."

Larry 08:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few edits with the aim of improving the NPOV/flow. Both paragraphs are sourced. Are you happy for the NPOV-check tag to be removed? If not could you clarify what you feel is needed, or improve yourself. EverSince 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm pretty much reading this as a not terribly subtle jab at "university educators of mental health professionals." This is not a Neutral Point Of View. This appears to be venting of an intraprofessional grudge.
Flow is much improved, though.--Larry 08:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see what you mean - I didn't add that paragraph myself and didn't quite pick up on that. I do agree with how it seems. For now I've removed it and left a msg on the editor's talk page in case. The other statement you quoted I did add and is directly sourced by the cite at the end of the paragraph. EverSince 10:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems better. I'll remove the NPOV-check tag. --Larry 00:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, it looks from the editor who added that point that it was a direct quote from a solid source so I'll just relay the info here. From Anthony, W.A., Cohen, M., Farkas, M, & Gagne, C. (2002). Psychiatric Rehabilitation, 2nd edition. Boston: Boston University Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation. ISBN 1878512110 “The need for a psychiatric rehabilitation to assist persons with psychiatric disability has been well documented...however psychiatric rehabilitation continues to be of little interest to university educators of mental health professionals [p16]” and from Best Practices in Psychosocial Rehabilitation: “Mental Health professionals often downplay or delay the exploration of employment goals: many mental health professionals still tend to focus on the emotional lives of the people they work with-either because of the academic training or…[p246]” This doesn't mean it isn't a pejorative point, of course, but I assume it merits inclusion as a sourced point of view of some relevance. EverSince 09:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if it's included as a quote from such-and-such source, that's fine. Not sourcing it is the NPOV issue. Larry 20:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

I'm wondering whether this article should actually go under the title of "Recovery model". That title does have the problem of not appearing specific to mental health/psych, and e.g. might find a recovery model of reactions in chemistry or whatever, but Googling does suggest this is a phrase with a particular usage in mental health. "Psychosocial recovery" is perhaps used in a slightly different sense (and a narrower one in the scientific literature - the opposite of psychosocial disability) and does bring up a different kind of page in Google. So I'm suggesting changing this article to the term "Recovery model" unless any alternative suggestions. EverSince 11:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that - I think it's a more commonly known term. --69.177.186.222 02:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be called a model at all? It implies professional construct. As an OT working in mental health, I was always encouraged to say recovery approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.139.34 (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be renamed... Maybe if anyone else expresses a preference for approach rather than model, someone (myself if I'm around) could do a move and redirect (or ask a watching admin to). EverSince (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I'm going to wp:be bold and do a move (title change) as per above comments, and considering also Capability approach. This is done in context that anyone can be equally as bold in moving it back of course or propose another name change or whatever. Eversense (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article development

[edit]

Does anyone have any suggestions on how the article needs to develop, any problems with it currently? I'm thinking of requesting a review of it shortly. EverSince 12:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In New Zealand, Recovery is not considered to be a model, but rather an approach or philosophy (and very recently a requirement to include in service delivery) which is valid in the lives of people (like me) who are taking responsibilty for their own recovery. Personally I like to think of Recovery in the same way that I understand 'recovery from a broken leg'. I am not confident on links on Wikipedia yet (in training!), but I would like to quote from 'Our lives in 2014 - a recovery vision from people with experience of mental illness', published in June 2004 with the assistance of the Mental Health Commission in New Zealand:

" Recovery happens when we regain personal power and a valued place in our communities. Sometimes we need services to support us to get there" (Page 15).

A review of this page in my opinion (and I might be able to contribute), needs to incorporate this approach or philosophy, and its inclusion in service delivery. Rockyar88 (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice user-friendly publication that. I had a go at putting in the view and quote you describe, with that reference, hope that helps and you can change it around to your liking. EverSince (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the "concepts of recovery" section needs subdividing a bit as it's a bit long/jumbled...not sure how best to do it but will have a try. EverSince (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I used to fund this article very helpful. I think posters should keep in mind that readers of it might be reading because they are recovering from something. It used to be focused on the positive signs of the path of recovery and the shared experience of it. It seems to have been somewhat coloured by issues around failed public services and the need for scientific research comparisons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.91.175 (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK at least the Recovery Model is increasing being used in the substance misuse service sector. It is supplanting the 12 steps programme, which used to be the most popular model and was made famous by Alcoholics Anonymous and later by Narcotics Anonymous. The main article makes no mention of this and maybe it should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxtoby (talk • contribs) 19:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not been around here myself for last couple of years, well I've started a substance use subsection to try & address that last comment above (& article mentions 12-step AA etc elsewhere briefly) which hopefully you or anyone can edit up. Regarding the positive signs of the path of recovery - maybe that section could be moved or renamed or something... may have a go myself, hope anyone else feels able to jump in and edit things around whenever. EverSince (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Too often talk pages are about problems. It's easier to find flaws than good things. But I have been reading the article and the documents attached to the citations and have really got an insight into this now. I have lots more material to read thanks to the citation links. Good job people. --bodnotbod (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A delayed thanks for the feedback! I hope anyone coming here anew feels free to edit and change the article. EverSince (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originating from the 12-Step Program... and the civil rights movement ??

[edit]

This origin is mentioned in the lead but not the article, also there is no reference. I guess it could make sense that recovery would be related to 12 step but the relationship to civil rights is beyond me. I'll delete the civil rights mention and maybe someone else can add a section to the article on the origins. Bhny (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhny: The civil rights movement set the cultural values and tone of the era, and strongly influenced the movement for the rights of the insane.[1] Also, this connection was and continues to be made as a framing strategy for mental health consumer advocates.[2] See also Psychiatric survivors movement. However, I don't think this is relevant for the current article, as patient's rights and the recovery approach share only an emphasis on the consumer perspective. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Started I'm continuing to explore this issue at User:Sondra.kinsey/sandbox/Mental health and civil rights Sondra.kinsey (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kliewer, Stephen P.; McNally, Melissa; Trippany, Robyn L. "Deinstitutionalization: Its Impact on Community Mental Health Centers and the Seriously Mentally Ill" (PDF). Alabama Counseling Association Journal. 35 (1). Retrieved 14 January 2017.
  2. ^ eg. National Council on Disability (October 23, 2012), Deinstitutionalization: Unfinished Business, Washington, DC: Author, retrieved 14 January 2017

Definitions

[edit]

I stumbled across this and it struck me as a rare thorough definition of the recovery approach in an official document. I offer it to other editors if they find it helpful in improving the article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Recovery approach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Additions

[edit]

Hello Wikipedia! I'm a college undergraduate adding some portions to this page for a class assignment. I'm adding some theory and details to the existing sections. I'm also adding a section about trauma-informed care that I think fits well into the article. Please let me know if you have edits or comments! Thank you!

Mjb399 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Hope you revisit, and acquire the Wikipedia 'habit.' rags (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Global Poverty and Practice

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mailesittler (article contribs). Peer reviewers: H3lpful4all779.

— Assignment last updated by H3lpful4all779 (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lz2605 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lz2605 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recovery_model&oldid=1213480718"