The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about changes in mental health occupational therapy. Research into these changes and the associated risks of relapse is insufficient. To explore the changes that have taken place in forms of occupational intervention (face-to-face and online) during the pandemic, and to analyze their association with subsequent relapses, a multicenter retrospective cohort study was carried out of 270 patients with mental disorder diagnoses under follow-up in day hospitals during 2020. Our results show that the frequency of face-to-face occupational therapy interventions decreased during lockdown and subsequently recovered. Interventions via telehealth increased during lockdown and have since been continued to a greater extent than before lockdown. Patients who received occupational intervention via telehealth relapsed less in the following six months (10.7% vs. 26.3%; χ² = 10.372; p = 0.001), especially those who received intervention via videoconferencing (4.2% vs. 22%; χ² = 5.718; p = 0.017). In conclusion, lockdown subsequent to the COVID-19 outbreak led to a reduction in face-to-face occupational therapy interventions, putting people with prior mental disorders at risk, while the implementation of telehealth tools helped reduce relapses.

Background: The recovery model assumes that the patient can experience personal growth even while maintaining symptoms of a mental disorder. In order to achieve this recovery, the practices of professionals must also change. However, in our setting, there are limited data on the implementation of practices based on the recovery model and their effect on personal recovery. Objective: To describe the association between professionals’ practices and patients’ personal recovery. Methods: An observational and cross-sectional study in which the Recovery Self-Assessment (RSA) was used to assess the degree of implementation of the different practices and the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) was used to assess the personal recovery of 307 patients with severe mental disorders. Results: Patients attended by professionals who followed the recovery model obtained a greater personal recovery (p < 0.001, d = 1.10). The dimension associated with greater recovery was that of working toward life goals. The least implemented dimensions had to do with offering treatment options and patient participation in decision-making. This study was conducted in accordance with STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology). Conclusions: Although this is a cross-sectional study that does not allow us to establish causal relationships, it shows that the model with which mental health professionals work is associated with patients’ chances of recovery. We therefore consider that it is important to foster the implementation of practices based on the recovery model within mental health care.

Background: To implement recovery-oriented practice, it is important to have instruments capable of evaluating such practice. A number of different questionnaires have been developed in recent years which measure recovery orientation in mental health services. Objective: To identify and analyze patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) reported in the literature that are related to recovery-oriented practice in mental health services. Methodology: This study followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Searches were carried out in the Web of Science, CINAHL, Medline (via Pubmed), and SCOPUS databases and in grey literature repositories (Google Scholar, Opengrey, Dart-Europe, Teseo). Papers on recovery services for adults suffering from mental disorders (MDs) were included. Those focusing on addiction and intellectual disability care services were excluded. Results: Sixteen papers met the inclusion criteria. The selected PREMs mainly identified recovery-oriented systems, treatment, community integration and support as the dimensions addressed most frequently in questionnaires. The average number of items included in the questionnaires was found to be 54. With regard to psychometric properties, 62% of the papers evaluated reliability (internal consistency) and 56% provided some kind of evidence of validity. Conclusions: This review aims to give an overview of the existing instruments in the literature and to highlight the characteristics of each one of them. Several different PREMs exist which evaluate recovery-oriented practice. No instrument currently exists which could be described as a benchmark tool, but there are quite a few with good psychometric properties capable of producing data that are useful when evaluating clinical services.