Recovery-Oriented Practice in Public Mental Health Services: A Systematic Scoping Review of Multidisciplinary...

This scoping review examined the views of multidisciplinary clinicians on the implementation of recovery-oriented practice (ROP) in public mental health services. ROP is mandated in Victoria, Australia, and is being increasingly utilised worldwide. Multidisciplinary clinicians' views are of utmost importance as they are at the forefront of service delivery. Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework guided the systematic scoping review using five electronic databases: CINHL, EMBASE OVID, MEDLINE OVID, PSYCHINFO and WEB OF SCIENCE. A total of 30 studies were included. Data were summarised and thematically analysed. Nine were mixed methods, 18 were qualitative, and three were quantitative studies. Similarities and differences arose, and themes were drawn out. There were 10 themes regarding implementation approaches, barriers, and enablers that emerged in examining multidisciplinary clinicians' perspectives. Major findings included the need for organisational commitment to ROP and the importance of targeted training for clinicians-particularly those with longer service-to update knowledge, challenge biomedical assumptions, and strengthen shared decision-making and positive risk-taking. Successful implementation of ROP empowered service users and promoted professional equality for lived experience workers while highlighting persistent power imbalances between multidisciplinary clinicians and service users. Definitions of ROP are varied and can be confusing. Service users are most positively affected by successful implementation of ROP through empowerment and equal treatment. Lived experience workers gain professional equality. Clinicians have long held professional power relative to service users. Mental health services could, prioritise translating research into practice through ongoing professional development and cultural competency training. This review differentiates from the authors' previous studies by demonstrating an evolution in clinicians' attitudes towards ROP since prior data were collected.