# Experiences of Clients and Professionals with the Recovery Oriented Intake

## TL;DR

This study compares client and professional experiences with a recovery-focused intake process versus traditional intake, finding mixed results and highlighting the need for professional training.

## Contribution

The study introduces the Recovery Oriented Intake (ROI) and evaluates its implementation and perceived quality compared to traditional methods.

## Key findings

- Clients' experiences with ROI and IAU were similar in terms of intake quality.
- Practitioners rated ROI as more recovery-oriented than IAU.
- Client RFC scores predicted their valuation of intake quality.

## Abstract

The Recovery Oriented Intake (ROI) integrates recovery principles from the start of treatment, and involves peer experts, unlike the intake as usual (IAU). This study compared experiences with ROI and IAU among 127 clients and 391 professionals, consisting of practitioners and peer experts. Intake’s quality, measured with questionnaires, showed no differences in experiences between ROI and IAU clients. However, practitioners experienced ROI as more recovery-oriented than IAU. The ROI Fidelity Check (RFC) revealed that clients’ RFC-scores, but not practitioners’, predicted their valuation of intake’s quality. This underscores the need for (re)training and peer supervision for professionals to ensure adherence to ROI’s principles. Discrepancies between clients’ and professionals’ experiences at the start of treatment are consistent with literature on working alliance and Shared Decision Making (SDM). Differences between ROI and IAU professionals may stem from heightened awareness of recovery principles due to training and the presence of peer experts during intake.