‘Think Football’: Exploring a football for mental health initiative delivered in the community through the lens of personal and social recovery (original) (raw)

Mental Health and Physical Activity

Personal recovery has an emerging prioritisation in western mental health services (Wallace et al., 2016), however, there is limited literature to support the filtering down of this focus into community contexts. Whilst there are numerous different interpretations of what personal recovery might mean, Anthony's (1993) definition is most frequently cited, which outlines how it is "a deeply personal, unique process of changing one's attitudes, values, feelings, goals, skills, and/or roles. It is a way of living a satisfying, hopeful, and contributing life even within the limitations caused by illness" (p.527). Personal recovery can be seen as a subjectively viewed and valued process (Borg & Davidson, 2008; Slade, 2009), which accepts that each individual's experience is different and that there is no blueprint for recovery (Perkins & Slade, 2012), an approach that is gaining increased support (Watson, 2012). One issue of personal recovery is the degree of conceptual confusion or misunderstanding (Davidson & Roe, 2007) and also how it lacks an evidence base (Davidson et al., 2006). In response to these claims, there has been a body of work from Mike Slade and colleagues (the REFOCUS programme, see Bird et al., 2014; Slade et al., 2011; Wallace et al., 2016) that has aimed to address this. Their work includes the development and 'validation' of the empirically-based CHIME conceptual framework for personal recovery that comprises five recovery processes, namely Connectedness, Hope and optimism, Identity, Meaning and purpose, and Empowerment (Leamy et al., 2011). The implementation of this framework is gaining traction in varying contexts (e.g., Brijnath, 2015), although critics have claimed that the CHIME framework tends towards the positive or optimistic (Connell et al., 2014) and does not always encompass the difficulties faced by many (Stuart, Tansey & Quayle, 2016). The framework and subsequent critique have contributed to moving the FOOTBALL AND MENTAL HEALTH RECOVERY 2 broader recovery discourse forwards, which has in recent years led to more attention being given to social recovery. Ramon (2018) made the case to look at social recovery consistently alongside personal recovery. Existing literature suggests that there is not a specific definition of social recovery, instead that it reflects that health services, policy makers and practitioners must look beyond the person, and appreciate issues of social justice and social inclusion (Davidson et al., 2009), as well as considering how the recovery processes can be supported in communities and facilitate social relationships (Fenton et al., 2017).