Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Institutional recovery: a 10-year follow-up of persons after their first psychosis diagnosis. A critical reflexive approach
Dep. of Social Work, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dep. of Social Work, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dep. of Social Work, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ, Dep. of Social Work. Jönköping University, School of Health and Welfare, HHJ. SALVE (Social challenges, Actors, Living conditions, reseach VEnue). Department of Psychiatry, Ryhov County Hospital, Jönköping, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Psychosis, ISSN 1752-2439, E-ISSN 1752-2447, Vol. 10, no 4, p. 263-274Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Despite repeated attempts, it has not been possible to reach a consensus on the definition of recovery. In this paper, we use the term “institutional recovery” and focus on the persons’ use of services.

Aim: What type of services were used by men and women who were diagnosed for the first time with psychosis? How did different cut-offs of length of follow up influence the findings?

Method: Interventions for 386 persons diagnosed for the first time with psychosis were followed up for 10 years. Data were collected from registers covering psychiatric and social work services and prisons.

Results: Results varied according to cut-off. Nevertheless, even using the higher cut-off, fifty-five percent of the persons had no stay in 24/7 institutions during the follow-up’s last 5 years. More than 40% had only community-based treatment and support. Fifteen percent had no interventions at all. A 2-year cut-off doubled the percentage of persons with no interventions. No statistically significant gender differences were found.

Conclusions: Institutional recovery could be a useful recovery measure. However, the results from different studies are dictated by choices made by the research team, which should be clarified and discussed. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2018. Vol. 10, no 4, p. 263-274
Keywords [en]
First episode, follow up, gender, psychosis, recovery, social work
National Category
Psychiatry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-42333DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2018.1511746ISI: 000452285700003Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85057755914OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-42333DiVA, id: diva2:1271735
Available from: 2018-12-18 Created: 2018-12-18 Last updated: 2018-12-20Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus
By organisation
HHJ, Dep. of Social WorkHHJ. SALVE (Social challenges, Actors, Living conditions, reseach VEnue)
In the same journal
Psychosis
Psychiatry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 23 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf