The “Critical” Elements of Illness Management and Recovery: Comparing Methodological Approaches

If you need an accessible version of this item, please email your request to digschol@iu.edu so that they may create one and provide it to you.
Date
2016-01
Language
English
Embargo Lift Date
Committee Members
Degree
Degree Year
Department
Grantor
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Found At
Springer
Abstract

This study examined three methodological approaches to defining the critical elements of Illness Management and Recovery (IMR), a curriculum-based approach to recovery. Sixty-seven IMR experts rated the criticality of 16 IMR elements on three dimensions: defining, essential, and impactful. Three elements (Recovery Orientation, Goal Setting and Follow-up, and IMR Curriculum) met all criteria for essential and defining and all but the most stringent criteria for impactful. Practitioners should consider competence in these areas as preeminent. The remaining 13 elements met varying criteria for essential and impactful. Findings suggest that criticality is a multifaceted construct, necessitating judgments about model elements across different criticality dimensions.

Description
item.page.description.tableofcontents
item.page.relation.haspart
Cite As
McGuire, A. B., Luther, L., White, D., White, L. M., McGrew, J., & Salyers, M. P. (2016). The “critical” elements of illness management and recovery: comparing methodological approaches. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(1), 1-10.
ISSN
Publisher
Series/Report
Sponsorship
Major
Extent
Identifier
Relation
Journal
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
Source
Author
Alternative Title
Type
Article
Number
Volume
Conference Dates
Conference Host
Conference Location
Conference Name
Conference Panel
Conference Secretariat Location
Version
Author's manuscript
Full Text Available at
This item is under embargo {{howLong}}