Premium
Recovery‐oriented care: mental health workers’ attitudes towards recovery from mental illness
Author(s) -
Egeland Karina Myhren,
Benth Jūratė Šaltytė,
Heiervang Kristin Sverdvik
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of caring sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.678
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1471-6712
pISSN - 0283-9318
DOI - 10.1111/scs.12958
Subject(s) - norwegian , mental health , sample (material) , mental illness , scale (ratio) , construct (python library) , psychology , psychiatry , health care , medicine , clinical psychology , nursing , philosophy , linguistics , chemistry , physics , chromatography , quantum mechanics , computer science , economics , programming language , economic growth
Background The Recovery Knowledge Inventory (RKI) was developed to operationalise the recovery construct and in turn contribute to moving mental health services towards recovery‐oriented practice. This study validated the RKI in a sample of Norwegian mental health care practitioners and examined mental health workers’ knowledge of and attitudes towards patient recovery. Methods The RKI was translated into Norwegian and tested on 317 mental health workers from 7 primary and 22 specialised mental health care units within a defined geographical area of Norway. Results Psychometric challenges to the RKI were observed and called into question the previously proposed four‐factor structure. The findings of the scale revealed that the study sample scored significantly lower than a comparable sample in a previous study, suggesting that the Norwegian mental health workers have relatively low orientation towards recovery. This finding was especially applicable to the reduction of symptoms and treatment, which the respondents perceived as essential for recovering from mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders. Conclusions To operationalise the recovery construct, the development of a measure such as the RKI needs further attention. For psychiatric practice to be moved in a more recovery‐oriented direction, consensus on what constitutes well‐functioning recovery must be reached by patients, practitioners and researchers alike.