Table 3.

A meta‐recovery framework

Traditional Recovery When: 1880s–present Brief: Based on models of rehabilitation for hospitalized patients (Benbow & Bowers 1998). Social psychiatry (Jones 1968), community psychiatry, group therapy, therapeutic communities (Dietrich 1976, Hinshelwood & Manning 1979), psychosocial interventions Theoretical orientation: Clinical recovery: diminution of symptoms (Onken et al. 2007, Harvey & Bellack 2009), industrial therapy units (Wells 2006), biological model, often accompanied by pharmacological intervention, although some non‐pharmaceutical approaches (e.g. Soteria, Arbours). A range of psychological therapies deployed. Clients' suitability: including involuntary and detained, patients suffering more acute or severe episodes requiring more intensive interventions, hospitalization, residential treatment or day hospitals, secure treatments, therapeutic prisons.

Addictions Recovery When: 1930s–present Brief: Large international network of addictions recovery approaches, often using Therapeutic Community principles. Peer self‐help group movement committed to recovery and sobriety. Later Narcotics Anonymous. Most addiction recovery programmes emphasize the importance of staged steps towards recovery, and the importance of peer relationships, prosocial encounters in therapy which addresses the antisocial compulsions of substance misuse. Many addiction recovery programmes employ people ‘in recovery’ as therapists, experts by experience. Theoretical orientation: 12‐Step, Milieu Therapy, Minnesota Model, Concept House approach, TCs, relapse prevention, replacement prescribing (route to detoxification), correctional institutions (US). Clients: people suffering from drug and alcohol problems, also other compulsions such as eating disorders or gambling.

New Recovery When: 1990s–present Brief: National Health Service, Psychiatry, Recovery Colleges, non‐residential, private entrepreneurships (especially US). Theoretical orientation: Education focused, anti‐therapy, Recovery Colleges, consumer led, entrepreneurial, co‐construction, with a focus on hope‐inspiring relationships, both with peers and staff (Slade 2009). Recovery features social inclusion, clients are ‘valued as human beings’ and where staff offer belief in the person's ability and potential. Changing practice including risk assessment and redefining user involvement (Boardman & Shepherd 2009). Socially focused‐based approaches that included strategies for facilitating a befriending, health information, social skill and life skills and so forth, with a strong Rogerian underpinning (Repper & Perkins 2003). Client suitability: People who are able to voluntarily engage with recovery and educative approaches, clients with longer term conditions that require less intensive intervention.

Mutual Recovery When: 2011–present Brief: Initially Arts & Humanities Research Council Funded Research (1.5million to establish and trial research looking across a range of arts interventions) focusing on third sector, independent, non‐residential services including arts centres, galleries, libraries. Theoretical orientation: Artists take the lead in programme design and delivery. Current programmes include; music, clay sculpting and creative writing, photography, drumming, Capoeira, music, digital storytelling, yoga, reading circles, performance arts workshops (e.g. comedy, poetry) (Crawford et al. 2013). Client suitability: People who are able to voluntarily engage with recovery and interested in arts‐based approaches, clients with longer term conditions requiring less intensive intervention.