King's College London

Research portal

Fit for purpose? Validation of a conceptual framework for personal recovery with current mental health consumers

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)644-653
Number of pages10
JournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Issue number7
PublishedJul 2014


  • Fit for purpose validation of a conceptual framework for personal recovery - Resubmission clean

    Fit_for_purpose_validation_of_a_conceptual_framework_for_personal_recovery_Resubmission_clean.doc, 289 KB, application/msword

    Uploaded date:12 Aug 2014

    Version:Submitted manuscript

  • Tables and figures

    Tables_and_figures.docx, 13.8 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

    Uploaded date:12 Aug 2014

    Version:Submitted manuscript

  • ODS1

    ODS1.docx, 14.6 KB, application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

    Uploaded date:21 Jul 2015

    Version:Submitted manuscript

King's Authors


Objective: Mental health services in the UK, Australia and other Anglophone countries have moved towards supporting personal recovery as a primary orientation. To provide an empirically grounded foundation to identify and evaluate recovery-oriented interventions, we previously published a conceptual framework of personal recovery based on a systematic review and narrative synthesis of existing models. Our objective was to test the validity and relevance of this framework for people currently using mental health services.

Method: Seven focus groups were conducted with 48 current mental health consumers in three NHS trusts across England, as part of the REFOCUS Trial. Consumers were asked about the meaning and their experience of personal recovery. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis applying a constant comparison approach was used to analyse the data. The analysis aimed to explore the validity of the categories within the conceptual framework, and to highlight any areas of difference between the conceptual framework and the themes generated from new data collected from the focus groups.

Results: Both the inductive and deductive analysis broadly validated the conceptual framework, with the super-ordinate categories Connectedness, Hope and optimism, Identity, Meaning and purpose, and Empowerment (CHIME) evident in the analysis. Three areas of difference were, however, apparent in the inductive analysis. These included practical support; a greater emphasis on issues around diagnosis and medication; and scepticism surrounding recovery.

Conclusions: This study suggests that the conceptual framework of personal recovery provides a defensible theoretical base for clinical and research purposes which is valid for use with current consumers. However, the three areas of difference further stress the individual nature of recovery and the need for an understanding of the population and context under investigation.

Download statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454