This letter offers methodological reflections on a qualitative interview study comparing adolescent personal recovery experiences with the adult CHIME framework. Several aspects merit further clarification, including the justification of data saturation, potential sampling bias toward service‐engaged youth, limited representation of divergent recovery narratives, and the reliance on single‐occasion interviews. We suggest that future studies consider more systematic sampling strategies, incorporate perspectives challenging dominant recovery narratives, and integrate complementary methods such as digital ethnography to strengthen interpretive depth and methodological rigor.
Zhao et al. (Mon,) studied this question.