Measuring personal recovery in people with a psychotic disorder based on CHIME: A comparison of three validated measures.
Jelle Sjoerd Vogel, Jojanneke Bruins, Levi Halbersma and 4 others
PMID 32147933WHAT IT FOUND
Three recovery questionnaires for people with psychosis were similar overall.
The Dutch MHRM had the best overall profile, but no measure was clearly preferred; choose based on whether you need connectedness or empowerment.
Key findings
01The MHRM had the highest overall score across the six criteria, but the difference was minimal and did not make it convincingly better than the RAS or NEL.
02The NEL was the only measure with more than half of its items rated straightforward, but it underrepresented hope and did not perform better on ease of administration.
03If connectedness is the focus, the NEL offers the strongest properties; if empowerment is the focus, the RAS is suggested.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
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 sample was small and came from a psychiatric institute (52 patients analysed), so it may not represent all people with psychosis. Content validity and item interpretability were judged only by researchers and a researcher/clinician, not by patients or families. The questionnaires were given in the same order to everyone, which could bias ratings of ease of completion. Convergent validity was checked only against social support, so the study did not test whether the measures relate to other recovery ideas such as hope, empowerment, or self-esteem. The sample was too small for confirmatory factor analysis, so the study cannot firmly show that CHIME dimensions are separate subscales. CHIME was developed from Western literature, which may limit use in other cultures.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the MHRM is the best measure for every patient. It had the highest total score across the six criteria, but the authors stated the minimal difference did not suggest it was convincingly better.