Comparing The Recovery Model And The Medical Model Of Recovery

In discussing the implications of a recovery model on service users/survivors and mental health services, it is essential to define recovery. In illustrating the controversial nature of this concept it is pragmatic to discuss service users and workers in mental health because implications of the recovery model affect both, but in different ways. It is important to realize there is a division in the focus of each group; service users generally want independence from services while health care providers focus on methods and models (Bonney & Stickley, 2008). In working together both groups can improve the provision of recovery services.

Mental health is a complex phenomenon that consists of a range of diagnoses, treatments and outcomes. Recovery from such experiences has historically meant to completely remove all symptoms of illness, but is now currently thought of as regaining a sense of control over and development of a new meaning and purpose in one’s life, rather than feeling defined by the illness. Each individual understands it in their own personal way, likened to a journey towards self-determination, choice, and empowerment.

People with mental health issues have been viewed and treated in a variety of ways within western society throughout time. Historically if an individual displayed behaviours which disrupted their function in society and defied social norms they were viewed as lunatics, insane or even cursed (Cowan, 2008; Elder & Evans & Nizette, 2009). It is from these past issues that many people still have unreasonable thoughts about mental illness; their misconceptions have created unreasonable fears and negative attitudes toward those who experience it. This negativity brings for many the barriers of not only

The strengths when working with clients on a medical model perspective is that the use of the DSM provides a common language to use in the medical community. The DSM provides reliability and structural guideline to each mental disorder. The structural guidelines in the DSM provide an organized list of criteria and specifiers to help determine the severity of the mental disorder. When diagnosing a client, there are many similar signs and symptoms to each mental disorder; thus, the DSM provides the clinician information about differential diagnosis, prevalence, possible co-morbidity, age of onset, and progressive development of symptoms. Hence, focusing on the medical model and using the DSM can be beneficial to both the client and the clinician providing treatment.

In mental health the concept of recovery is a contrast to the medical context to which we are accustomed to. Individuals experiencing mental illnesses have expressed recovery to be “elusive, not perfectly linear… erratic, we flatter, slide back and regroup…establish a sense of integrity and purpose” (Roads to recovery, n.d.), which reflects

Regarding the treatment of mental illness, there are two effective forms that have caused considerable debates in the field of psychology: the medical and the recovery models. While there are significant differences between these two models, they are both effective when used concurrently. The efficacy of the medical model alone is diminishing as it focuses too narrowly on treatment goals, and may ignore the needs of the client. On the other hand, the recovery model focuses on the client and allows them to take control of their treatment and rehabilitation, which helps promote positive change. Recovery is often seen as a lifelong journey that requires the client to be wholly involved in the recovery process. This is why the recovery model values

The recovery model is a tool that is used to help a client live their lives through the best of their abilities. By working with a therapist using the recovery model, goals are made by both the client and the therapist based upon what the client would like to achieve. This allows for clients to take control of their own lives and allows for the client to know that they have different options that they can choose. Clients are better able to come up with goals and the outcome that they desire to see in their everyday life by giving the client a sense of hope, support, and purpose.

While stigma may not necessarily be a cause of a person’s mental disorder, it can certainly contribute to the complication and perpetuation of their illness. The effect of stigma goes well beyond just the patient and provides a commentary on society’s overall level of intolerance of those who are considered different from the majority. By recognizing the level of stigma that exists, perhaps we can alter that behavior and gravitate towards a more productive attitude towards mental illness.

Recovery is a term used when an individual comes to terms and overcomes the obstacles associated with a mental illness. (Le Boutillier et al.,2011).

Within the past two decades there’s been a revival in efforts to reduce stigmatization attached to mental illnesses. It was concluded that if mental illnesses were perceived better as ‘real’ diseases by the public that stigma would go down greatly. Reports proposed the idea that better scientific understanding of mental illnesses by the general public could greatly reduce stigma. Stigma is intensely rooted in social and cultural norms it’s patterns devalue and dehumanize groups of individuals within society (in this case mentally ill people). Stigma constructs barriers for individuals, barriers that limit a person’s abilities to have equal opportunities for employment, safe housing, health care and social relationships.Efforts to reduce stigma in recent years have

They are popularly referred to as being part of a continuum, the ability to successfully perform in productive activities and relationships, as opposed to the inability to do such things (Mental Illness Overview). Ever since the first edition of the DSM was published in 1952, scientists have studied how a person’s mind relates to their brain and whether the disorders they listed were organic or purely in the mind (Arben). Science has made extraordinary leaps in this aspect, as they have come to discover not only the biological change that causes mental illnesses, but they are also able to pin down even specific chromosomes linked to them. One in particular that has been heavily studied is depression, which is known to be related to a lack of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the brain. Some of the more recently developed medications, known as SSRIs, block the receptors that recycle serotonin from taking in too much and allowing enough to carry proper signals throughout the brain (Johnson). While some people insist on the opinion that drugs such as these are overprescribed (Medications for Mental Illness Are Overprescribed), professionals use tested algorithms when determining whether a patient is in need of medication, and if so what medication to use (Restricting Medications for Mental Illness Harms Patients). These methods have been fine-tuned over the past few decades and are used treat a patient to their own personal needs, and to aid

Contemporary mental health care is a changing and developing field. Traditional practices of understanding and caring for those with mental illness are being challenged (Trenoweth, 2017). Personal recovery is not a new concept. Although it is significantly different to the biomedical model, it has been well written about in literature, putting a significant influence on policies and the delivery of care within today’s practices. When people with a lived experience of mental illness started to challenge the biomedical model of care, recovery orientated health care began to grow (Barkway, 2013). Before further exploring both personal recovery and the biomedical approach, we will look at what recovery is. Slade (2009) outlines a two part definition

The biomedical model of health takes into account the physical or biological quality of life and is widely used in the Western medicine approach to health (Gurung, 2104). A basic assumption of this model is that the mind and body connection is irrelevant. Many advances in medicine have occured because of the biomedical model of health. In using evidence-based medicine it has been possible to evaluate the results of clinical and pharmaceutical research in order to make strides in medicine (Ashton, 1999). It takes advantage of algorithmic treatment options. Even though this approach may be more difficult for a psychiatrist to utilize when diagnosing and treating a patient, this model has radically shaped psychotherapy research and psychiatric medication (Deacon, 2013). The biomedical approach lends itself more readily to research because of its quantitative nature and it is less subjective than the biopsychosocial approach when measuring emotions and culture.

‘Recovery from a mental health problem can be understood either as an outcome or as a process.’ Also known as ‘clinical recovery’ an outcome is present depends on whether the symptoms/problems are present or absent (Serafín Lemos-Giráldez 2015). Usually involving a reduction or absence of symptoms and a significant improvement in occupational and social functioning, an outcome does not change from person to person. On the other hand, individuals who go through a process in order to live a joyful and fulfilling life, experience personal recovery. (Serafín Lemos-Giráldez 2015). This form of recovery involves learning to become self-managing of one’s illness, whether recurring symptoms are at that point in time present and working towards a self-caring, independent and fulfilling life. The definition of a satisfying like varies from one individual to the next. This is why each consumer’s recovery journey is personal and tailored to fit their goals and beliefs (Serafín Lemos-Giráldez 2015).

Psychosocial rehabilitation has its theoretical roots in evolving a failed effort, by the mental health system, to help mentally ill patients in coping with the psychosocial devastation brought on by severe mental illness and behavioural problems (Correctional Services Canada, 2013). The traditional methods of treatment viewed recovery as a process of curing an illness, usually with medication, but recovery does not subsequently occur once their illness is “treated” (CSC, 2013). This traditional method was ineffective because their recovery was halted by limited support and skills and ‘abnormal’ behaviours learned in institutions (CSC, 2013). These deficits resulted in chronic impairments and maladaptive social functioning (CSC, 2013). These individuals were unable to fulfill normal social roles and successfully live independently in the community (CSC, 2013). The PSR approach to recovery incorporates more than just eliminating the signs and symptoms of the illness, is based on understanding the patients voice and experiences and encouraging participation and self-determination in treatment (CSC, 2013). This approach recognises the care values such as hope, empowerment, and determination are essential to recovery (CSC, 2013). The importance of skill development and community support are also highlighted (CSC, 2013).