Conceptualisation of Mental Health Recovery by Health Professionals and Students in Southeast Asia: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Aggregation.
Rinlita Chatwiriyaphong, Ritin Fernandez, Rebecca Bosworth and 2 others
PMID 39960097WHAT IT FOUND
Southeast Asian health professionals and students often understood mental health recovery as symptom control, medication, service access and returning to normal functioning.
Some saw participation in daily life as recovery despite residual symptoms.
Key findings
01Health professionals and students in Southeast Asia understood mental health recovery as a medically driven and determined return to normal functioning.
02Their understanding included six categories: return to being a normal person, symptom-free status, medication adherence, access to mental health services, living with residual symptoms, and holistic care with a psychosocial focus.
03Despite residual symptoms, some participants felt people could comprehend their condition and lead meaningful lives, including participating in daily living and society.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included only English-language studies published between 2006 and 2024, and excluded conference reports and specific grey literature, so relevant papers may have been missed. More than half of the included studies did not state the authors' influence on the research or explain their cultural and theoretical perspectives. The included studies were conducted in Singapore (n = 5), Indonesia (n = 3), Thailand (n = 1), and Vietnam (n = 1), and the authors note that qualitative findings are context-specific and limited in generalisability. The overall ConQual score was low, so confidence in the synthesised finding is limited. The review studied health professionals and students, not patients, families or the public, so it describes perceptions rather than patient outcomes.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read these themes as evidence that recovery-oriented care improves patient outcomes. The review synthesised health professionals' and students' perceptions of recovery, not patient outcomes or tested interventions.