Comparison Of The Medical Model Of Mental Illness And The Recovery Model Of Mental Illness

The Medical Model of Mental Illness

In the context of psychiatry, there is always an emphasis on the functioning and symptoms that is advanced to elaborate valuations in addition to the interviews along with the rating scales that is used to document as well as monitor psychopathology (Jacob, 2015). Such appraisals were measured by the positive and negative symptoms of psychotic nature including depression and anxiety, and the other cognitive deficits in addition to functioning. There was also an early success of psychotropic medication which worked to reduce the symptoms of anxiety and psychosis along with depression which paved the path to hopefulness for the mental health staff (Aneshensel, Phelan &Bierman, 2013). This will establish that people in such situation will recover from their mental illness and will be able to lead normal lives.This paper highlights the medical model of mental illness along with the recovery model of mental illness. This paper further compares and contrasts both of these models on the basis of the experience of the clients who have been experiencing the services of these theories.

Comparing the medical model of mental illness with the recovery model of mental illness it has been perceived that the medical model is basically based in scientific psychiatry whereas the recovery model is more based on the fundamentals of personal experiences.  The medical model of mental illness is engaged in treatment of disorders in similar ways as treatment is given for nay order disorders like a broken arm or situations that is referred to a physical cause. This model of mental illness is most of the time taken into account by the psychiatrists, in place of the psychologists. The persons who are backing this medical model consider the signs of the disorders to be signs of the physical ailments that is occurring internally. These symptoms are grouped together and are referred to as a syndrome (Lê Cook et al.,2014). In case of this medical model, the treatment is generally treated by using prescription medications. According to Acharya et al., (2017), these medications however alter the brain chemistry and in most cases is responsible for changing the chemistry that is seen to be responsible for certain problems like the mood, perception in addition to anxiety or other issues. This medication should he given in appropriate dosage in order to obtain a positive impact (Newton, 2013).

From the context of the customer experience, it can be stated that the practise using the medical model of health practise has a dominating impact starting from the intake to discharge. This is especially in case of the impacts of the treatment that is obtainable for personalities with schizophrenia and their families. These persons who are suffering from schizophrenia are affected mostly as they are most of the time assigned to nurses who have the largest caseloads in addition to the least expanse of time (Acharya et al., 2017). In addition to there is no time for family involvement in such cases. Often it is seen that the social workers are involved in working with these individuals. These social workers also work for many extra mental health centres which have parallel staffing along with the caseload patterns for persons with schizophrenia. Therefore in such cases there is a requirement for inter-professional collaboration that can be brought about by the medical model to establish a more comprehensive treatment approach by bringing in various disciplines working together (Deacon, 2013).

The Recovery Model of Mental Illness

In contrast to the medical model which is grounded on scientific psychiatry, the recovery model is based on the experiences at the personal level that is perceived from the prevalent situation in addition to the learning and support. Through the recovery model therapy there can be implementation of therapy for the behavioural and cognitive issues that will be required for a being who is suffering from mental illness to become a part of the community (Drake& Whitley, 2014). This process is involved in providing a holistic view of the treatment to the people with mental illness and not only to focus on the symptoms. This is sharp contrast to the medical model which mainly emphasises on the symptoms or rather the syndromes. This process of recovery model requires the implementation of optimism along with commitment from people with mental illness. The same is required from their families in addition to their mental health staff or the public healthcare teams, social services and the wider community. This model is significantly influenced by the expectation of thepatients and their attitudes. It also requires a system of support that is well organized by the family, friends or the professionals (Drapalski et al., 2013). There is also a requirement for the mental health system in addition to the primary care, public health and social services which can be implemented to adapt to new as well as innovative methods of working. The recovery model has an objective to help people with mental diseases and who are distressed to focus on outside their mere endurance and existence. A study by Kazdin & Rabbitt, (2013) showed that the recovery model helps and encourages the individuals to move forward in life and develop new goals for survival. The model is involved in supporting the view that these individuals should implement in their lives, in addition to doing things apart from developing relationships that will be useful in giving their lives some meaning.

In the context of setting priorities for the recovery model these include achieving of goals while working in collaboration with all the stakeholders involved. The model provides care for the adults, the children as well as their families who are affected by mental illnesses and added emotional ailments significant in nature .The model also assures the maximum quality of culturally competent amenities possible. The recovery model also works towards the elimination of stigma and promoting the philosophy ofrecovery (Volkow, Koob&McLellan, 2016). Similarly from the context of the customers who experience both these services stated that the medical model treated the individuals like a disease; whereas the recovery model treated the patients like a person. The customers also perceived that recovery was something that they were doing on their own. While the role of the health staff was only to facilitate the recovery which was either through psychopharmacology or psycho-education (Harper& Speed, 2014). The medical model can only treating mental illness with medicine which suppresses symptomology, but cannot make the holistic recovery of the client. However according to the client’s viewpoint there are also some arenas in which the medical model has certain strengths. This is basically in the considerable amount of agreement among persons as to what a problem is and such glitches reflect circumstances that involves only a simple relations that is cause-effective. However there are certain limitations in relation to this model among which the aspects involve an over-reliance on the categories, in addition to the ideals and objectivity along with a failure to recognize the prominence of the experiences faced inside, there is also a lack of response for diversity as well as for the noteworthy role that is played by folks in their own evolution (Huffman et al., 2014). There is also no appreciation for the role that is played by the culture in mental health. However the recovery model is able to address these drawbacks since the process of recovery does not only occur by simply administration of medication or by attending a day program of medication. The process of recovery is involved in developing a full-phased recovery program which includes exercise and education in addition to the relationship building as well as therapy. There is also some life skill development along with the support groups and the self-help/12-step groups, with such other services.

Comparing the Two Models Based on Client Experience

From the above discussion it can be concluded that both the medical and the recovery model must exist together in order to make the clients become more empowered so that the medical model will have less impact on the effect on their mental health treatment. For many years mental health professionals have seen themselves as ‘casemanagers’ for the population begin served. The clients presented that they were not cases hence they did not required to be managed. There are also recent methods to psychological well-being and disease along with the substantial emphasis on symptoms. There is also a compact response to management as there are many persons with severe psychological illness and their dearth to get back to their unique level of performance. The recovery model in contrast to the medical model adds a new role to the care service. This allows the people with severe mental illness to control their lives. This is an important objective that all professionals of mental health should achieve.

References

Acharya, B., Maru, D., Schwarz, R., Citrin, D., Tenpa, J., Hirachan, S., …&Kohrt, B. (2017). Partnerships in mental healthcare service delivery in low-resource settings: developing an innovative network in rural Nepal. Globalization and health, 13(1), 2.

Aneshensel, C. S., Phelan, J. C., &Bierman, A. (2013). The sociology of mental health: Surveying the field. In Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 1-19). Springer, Dordrecht.

Deacon, B. J. (2013). The biomedical model of mental disorder: A critical analysis of its validity, utility, and effects on psychotherapy research. Clinical psychology review, 33(7), 846-861.

Drake, R. E., & Whitley, R. (2014). Recovery and severe mental illness: description and analysis. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 59(5), 236-242.

Drapalski, A. L., Lucksted, A., Perrin, P. B., Aakre, J. M., Brown, C. H., DeForge, B. R., & Boyd, J. E. (2013). A model of internalized stigma and its effects on people with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 64(3), 264-269.

Harper, D., & Speed, E. (2014). Uncovering recovery: The resistible rise of recovery and resilience. In De-Medicalizing Misery II (pp. 40-57). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Huffman, J. C., Niazi, S. K., Rundell, J. R., Sharpe, M., &Katon, W. J. (2014). Essential articles on collaborative care models for the treatment of psychiatric disorders in medical settings: a publication by the Academy of Psychosomatic Medicine Research and Evidence-Based Practice Committee. Psychosomatics, 55(2), 109-122.

Jacob, K. S. (2015). Recovery model of mental illness: A complementary approach to psychiatric care. Indian journal of psychological medicine, 37(2), 117.

Kazdin, A. E., &Rabbitt, S. M. (2013). Novel models for delivering mental health services and reducing the burdens of mental illness. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(2), 170-191.

Lê Cook, B., Wayne, G. F., Kafali, E. N., Liu, Z., Shu, C., & Flores, M. (2014). Trends in smoking among adults with mental illness and association between mental health treatment and smoking cessation. Jama, 311(2), 172-182.

Newton, J. (2013). Preventing mental illness in practice. Routledge.

Volkow, N. D., Koob, G. F., &McLellan, A. T. (2016). Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(4), 363-371.