TY - JOUR
T1 - Reviewing the evidence base for social recovery in mental health service provision
T2 - A protocol for a scoping review
AU - Swords, Calvin
AU - Norton, Michael John
AU - Maddock, Alan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 Swords et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2025/5
Y1 - 2025/5
N2 - Introduction The concept of recovery within mental health service delivery is no longer a new concept across the westernised world. However, its development in terms of implementation policy and practice has remained challenging for all stakeholders. This has focused on personal recovery being unattainable for many individuals due to neoliberalism and individualism. Consequently, one argument which is beginning to build is the need to focus on the idea of social recovery, a relatively new concept. However, no synthesis of social recovery’s evidence base in relation to mental health service provision has taken place. This protocol provides a detailed plan of how a scoping review would be undertaken and completed to examine this evidence. Methods and analysis Adopting Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis compliant scoping review has been chosen. This includes a five-stage approach to completing scoping reviews. This includes the search terms that will be used. It also details the variety of databases (CINAHL, EBSCO, Jstor, OVID SP, PsychINFO, PubMed, RCNi, Science Direct, Web of Science and Scopus) and other sources including repositories (Cochrane Online Library, ETHos, nz.research. org.nz, ProQuest, National ETD Portal, Google, Google Scholar and ResearchGate). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are illustrated in this protocol. Given that the concept of social recovery is relatively new, no search range was chosen.
AB - Introduction The concept of recovery within mental health service delivery is no longer a new concept across the westernised world. However, its development in terms of implementation policy and practice has remained challenging for all stakeholders. This has focused on personal recovery being unattainable for many individuals due to neoliberalism and individualism. Consequently, one argument which is beginning to build is the need to focus on the idea of social recovery, a relatively new concept. However, no synthesis of social recovery’s evidence base in relation to mental health service provision has taken place. This protocol provides a detailed plan of how a scoping review would be undertaken and completed to examine this evidence. Methods and analysis Adopting Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis compliant scoping review has been chosen. This includes a five-stage approach to completing scoping reviews. This includes the search terms that will be used. It also details the variety of databases (CINAHL, EBSCO, Jstor, OVID SP, PsychINFO, PubMed, RCNi, Science Direct, Web of Science and Scopus) and other sources including repositories (Cochrane Online Library, ETHos, nz.research. org.nz, ProQuest, National ETD Portal, Google, Google Scholar and ResearchGate). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are illustrated in this protocol. Given that the concept of social recovery is relatively new, no search range was chosen.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105005644408
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0324249
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0324249
M3 - Article
C2 - 40397858
AN - SCOPUS:105005644408
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 20
JO - PLOS ONE
JF - PLOS ONE
IS - 5 May
M1 - e0324249
ER -