English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Living well in spite of residual symptoms of mental illness is measured with the construct of personal recovery. The CHIME framework might be suitable to evaluate personal recovery measures and guide instrument choice. Methods Three validated measures were evaluated in Dutch patients with a psychotic disorder (N=52). We compared the Recovery Assessment Scale [RAS], the Mental Health Recovery Measure [MHRM] and the Netherlands Empowerment List [NEL]. The measures were assessed on six criteria: content validity (based on CHIME), convergent validity with a social support measure, internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, item interpretability and ease of administration. Results The MHRM scored high on content validity with a balanced distribution of items covering the CHIME framework. The MHRM and NEL showed moderate convergent validity with social support. In all three measures internal consistency was moderate and floor and ceiling effects were absent. The NEL scores demonstrated a high degree of item interpretability. Ease of administration was moderate for all three measures. Finally, the CHIME framework demonstrated good utility as a framework in guiding instrument choice and evaluation of personal recovery measures. Discussion The MHRM showed the best overall result. However, differences between measures were minimal. Generalization of the results is limited by cultural and linguistic factors in the assessment for the subjective measures (i.e. content validity and item interpretability). The broad and multi-dimensional construct of personal recovery might lead to ambiguous interpretations. Scientific consensus on a well-defined personal recovery construct is needed.

schizophrenia bulletin

T234. MEASURING PERSONAL RECOVERY IN PEOPLE WITH A PSYCHOTIC DISORDER BASED ON CHIME: A COMPARISON OF RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY PROPERTIES ON THREE VALIDATED MEASURES