| Title |
Some Recovery Processes in Mutual-Help Groups for Persons with Mental Illness; II: Qualitative Analysis of Participant Interviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Community Mental Health Journal, December 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10597-005-6429-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick W. Corrigan, Natalie Slopen, Gabriela Gracia, Sean Phelan, Cornelius B. Keogh, Lorraine Keck |
| Abstract |
Previous research suggests that consumer operated services facilitate recovery from serious mental illness. In part I of this series, we analyzed the content of the GROW program, one example of a consumer operated service, and identified several processes that Growers believe assists in recovery. In this paper, we review the qualitative interviews of 57 Growers to determine what actual participants in GROW acknowledge are important processes for recovery. We also used the interviews to identify the elements of recovery according to these Growers. Growers identified self-reliance, industriousness, and self-esteem as key ingredients of recovery. Recovery was distinguished into a process-an ongoing life experience-versus an outcome, a feeling of being cured or having overcome the disorder. The most prominent element of GROW that facilitated recovery was the support of peers. Gaining a sense of personal value was also fostered by GROW and believed to be important for recovery. The paper ends with a discussion of the implications of these findings for the ongoing development of consumer operated services and their impact on recovery. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 53 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 10 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 36% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,696,396
of 22,787,797 outputs
Outputs from Community Mental Health Journal
#211
of 1,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,505
of 146,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Community Mental Health Journal
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,787,797 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 146,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them