How Recovery-Oriented is the Content of Intakes? Recovery Oriented Intake vs. Intake as Usual
Introduction
The Recovery Oriented Intake (ROI) was developed in 2017 to apply recovery oriented principles from the beginning of treatment. The present study examines to what extent the focus on recovery during the ROI translates into its actual documentation. Specifically, if there is a difference between the ROI and intake as usual (IAU) in how thoroughly all recovery domains are assessed and how well the collected information is integrated into clients’ case conceptualization and translates into measurable treatment/recovery goals. Finally, differences between ROI and IAU patients’ experiences are examined of how these goals are formulated and to what extent they are achieved during treatment.
Methods
A total of 58 clients’ screening and intake reports (ROI: 29 patients; IAU: 29 patients) were randomly selected and examined by the primary researcher. An independent researcher also rated a subset of these reports to determine interrater reliability. Reports were rated according to the following elements: i) number of aspects addressed, ii) level of detailedness and thoroughness per aspect, iii) global score of the overall use beyond the biopsychosocial model, and iv) quality of the treatment/recovery goal(s). Further, both ROI and IAU patients were interviewed about their process of (collaborative) goal formulation and achievement.
Results and conclusion
Preliminary results and implications of this study will be presented for the first time during the symposium.
The Recovery Oriented Intake (ROI) was developed in 2017 to apply recovery oriented principles from the beginning of treatment. The present study examines to what extent the focus on recovery during the ROI translates into its actual documentation. Specifically, if there is a difference between the ROI and intake as usual (IAU) in how thoroughly all recovery domains are assessed and how well the collected information is integrated into clients’ case conceptualization and translates into measurable treatment/recovery goals. Finally, differences between ROI and IAU patients’ experiences are examined of how these goals are formulated and to what extent they are achieved during treatment.
Methods
A total of 58 clients’ screening and intake reports (ROI: 29 patients; IAU: 29 patients) were randomly selected and examined by the primary researcher. An independent researcher also rated a subset of these reports to determine interrater reliability. Reports were rated according to the following elements: i) number of aspects addressed, ii) level of detailedness and thoroughness per aspect, iii) global score of the overall use beyond the biopsychosocial model, and iv) quality of the treatment/recovery goal(s). Further, both ROI and IAU patients were interviewed about their process of (collaborative) goal formulation and achievement.
Results and conclusion
Preliminary results and implications of this study will be presented for the first time during the symposium.