The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201200274

Objective

Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a standardized psychosocial intervention that is designed to help people with severe mental illness manage their illness and achieve personal recovery goals. This literature review summarizes the research on consumer-level effects of IMR and articles describing its implementation.

Methods

In 2011, the authors conducted a literature search of Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library by using the key words “illness management and recovery,” “wellness management and recovery,” or “IMR” AND (“schizophrenia” OR “bipolar” OR “depression” OR “recovery” OR “mental health”). Publications that cited two seminal IMR articles also guided further exploration of sources. Articles that did not deal explicitly with IMR or a direct adaptation were excluded.

Results

Three randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), three quasi-controlled trials, and three pre-post trials have been conducted. The RCTs found that consumers receiving IMR reported significantly more improved scores on the IMR Scale (IMRS) than consumers who received treatment as usual. IMRS ratings by clinicians and ratings of psychiatric symptoms by independent observers were also more improved for the IMR consumers. Implementation studies (N=16) identified several important barriers to and facilitators of IMR, including supervision and agency support. Implementation outcomes, such as participation rates and fidelity, varied widely.

Conclusions

IMR shows promise for improving some consumer-level outcomes. Important issues regarding implementation require additional study. Future research is needed to compare outcomes of IMR consumers and active control groups and to provide a more detailed understanding of how other services utilized by consumers may affect outcomes of IMR.