Criticisms of the Mental Health Recovery Model

Hello all:

As per Will’s direction on his blog, WillSpirit, I was pointed to a number of criticisms for the recovery movement that I would like to address. Some of them are very valid, others are somewhat misconceptions, but as with every model the mental health recovery model is not without its faults, so in an attempt to give you an unbiased view, I will review such shortcomings and my opinions on them here:

1) The recovery model adds to the burden of the providers

Recovery in fact decreases the burden of the mental healthcare provider. As is demonstrated by both the American Clubhouse model and the U.K. model, recovery oriented clinics tend to lean towards the use of peer mentorships and peer counselors. These advisors (usually individuals on the road to recovery or recovered who suffered from the same or a similar diagnosis) take some of the burden away from case managers and physicians by re-acquainting mental healthcare consumers with basic social interactions, going to the movies, etc.

2) Recovery must involve cure

This is probably the battle that is fought the most in the recovery movement, as the term recovery implicitly refers to absence of ailments, a return to normalcy, and no symptom interference at all. While perhaps a different name would have lead to less confusion, that is the name and there is not much to be done about it now, but recovery in a mental health setting certainly does not imply complete absence of symptom interference. Some mental illnesses are severe and persistent and may never go away; the mental health recovery model merely focuses on empowering individuals to allow them to lead long, fulfilling lives in spite of symptoms and to teach them how to maintain a successful career and meaningful relationships.

3) Recovery-oriented care can only be pursued through new resources

Well…this one is a yes and no. Yes new trainings will need to take place and should a clinic wish to purchase psychographic measurement tools those will need to be brought on, along with their supporting technologies and data-management system. But in terms of actual resources nothing overly extravagant is required of a recovery-clinic that a normal clinic wouldn’t already have.

4) Recovery-oriented care is not reimbursable or evidence based

This argument is flat-out incorrect. The development of psychographics is a growing industry and millions of dollars of funding is going towards research institutes and clinics for the exploration into such quantifiable measurements of recovery. Reimbursement has never been an issue for recovery-clinics. What is a bit of a concern is the expertise needed to analyze the aggregated psychographic indicators; this often times will require an advanced multidisciplinary team, but smaller clinics without such researchers can of course outsource the data analysis to more equipped research facilities or to independent contractors.

5) Recovery devalues the role of professional intervention

Not so, recovery values the role of professionals but creates a relationship between professional and consumer as a team effort towards recovery, rather than in a traditional sense wherein the professional instructed the consumer as to what they were doing wrong and how to fix it. This leads to more constructive internal motivations for the consumer thus is more effective. Recovery does change the role of the professional, as is implied via the team- rather than boss-relationship, and the use of peer mentors and councilors does take away some day-to-day duties of professionals, but this freeing of time should be seen as a relief and an opportunity to devote one’s time to more complicated and intricate matters rather than spending that time showing a consumer where to get a bus pass, etc (which is now a duty taken on by peer support groups and case managers).

These were just some of the biggest criticisms I found on the web. If you have more pressing concerns that haven’t been addressed I would love to address them so just shoot me a comment!

Until next time,
Lex
MHCD Research and Evaluations