166 Chapter 8 making for clinical practice (115-118). Co-creation in dialogue, with experiential and professional knowledge can improve the success of recovery-oriented practices (119123). Involving relatives and other social network members should not be forgotten, because they often feel unheard and unseen by professionals (124) and experience a profound sense of loss and desperation (125). Three models that show promising results to support recovery within the triad are: Open Dialogue, the Active Recovery Triad (ART) and the Resource Group (RG) method. Open Dialogue can bring change in mental healthcare by emphasizing the professional’s capacity for empathy, presence and listening and by avoiding interpreting experience through symptom-focused diagnoses (126, 127). ART is an approach for long-term mental health services combining an active role for professionals, service users, and significant others, with focus on recovery and cooperation within the triad (128, 129). In the RG method patients, significant others and professionals form a Resource Group that meets quarterly to discuss the patients’ recovery goals and wishes, and to develop a plan to achieve them (130). Directions for future research There are some recommendations and challenges for future research into mental health recovery. First of all, it stays important to constantly reflect on why and how we want to research recovery. Some patients argue that recovery is a consumer-developed concept and should not be claimed by professionals and researchers (13). A solution to this problem can be to engage people with lived experience and their significant others in setting up research projects (119, 131-135). This is something that has been done in the research described in chapter 7, involving patient and family associations from the beginning of the conceptualization of the study (136). Studies have been done into the barriers and facilitators of co-production in psychosis research (137). Acknowledging that lived experience is just as important as outcomes of evidencebased research, is a good start (138). The actual definition of mental health recovery remains to be a bottleneck. Should recovery be divided into different types of recovery: clinical, functional, societal and personal recovery, or should recovery only refer to the subjective experience (139)? Is it actually possible to measure a highly individual concept in a quantitative manner, or should only qualitative methods be used to understand recovery better? If personal recovery is quantified, one meets the problem of which questionnaire to use. Several measures have been developed to assess personal recovery (54, 140, 141). International consensus about the preferable theoretical framework of personal recovery and using the same measures, can contribute to better comparability of research (142). Studies have shown that 30-54% of qualitative
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw