Responding to the Challenge of Mental Health Recovery Policy

The movement towards recovery-oriented mental health service provision has emerged from growing consumer interest to define recovery in terms of personal experience, rather than symptom reduction. In many Western nations, this developing interest has helped to shape governmental health policy (Slade, Amering, & Oades, 2008). Slade, Amering and Oades (2008) state that policy in mental health recovery has become widespread in the English speaking world. They make a distinction between clinical recovery and the more consumer defined view of personal recovery, arguing that the term ‘recovery’ has become increasingly visible in mental health services, referring to personal recovery. Rather than the traditional medical meaning of cure as the remission of symptoms, the term “recovery” is being used to describe the personal and transformational process of consumers living with mental illness (Andresen, Oades & Caputi, 2003). The guiding principle for mental health policy in many predominantly English-speaking countries is mental health recovery, particularly now personal recovery: Australia (Australian Health Ministers, 2003), Canada (Piat & Sabetti, 2009), England (Department of Health, 2001), Ireland (Mental Health Commission, 2005), New Zealand (Mental Health Commission, 1998) and the United States (New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2005). This policy consensus has now become professional rhetoric. Using England as just one example, the principles of recovery have been adopted by clinical psychology (British Psychological Society Division of Clinical Psychology, 2000), mental health nursing (Department of Health, 2006), occupational therapy (College of Occupational Therapists, 2006) and psychiatry (Care Services Improvement Partnership, Royal College of Psychiatrists, & Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2007). Slade, Amering and Oades (2008) use the term “rhetorical consensus” to refer to the consensus about the policy, which conceals the complexity and confusion around the term recovery. Since this article, further developments regarding mental health recovery have been impacting in European and Asian countries. Despite this increasing interest at the policy level, much of professional training remains symptom focussed, and many organisations continue on similar models. To respond to the challenge of recovery policy it is important to have a clear definition of the phenomenon. It can then be measured. Services can then be developed based on the concept. Whilst this seems rudimentarystrong empirical work in this regard remains in its infancy. This chapter provides a descriptive overview of definitions of mental health