Rebecca Toney1, Daniel Elton1, Emma Munday1, Kate Hamill1, Adam Crowther1, Sara Meddings1, Anna Taylor1, Claire Henderson1, Helen Jennings1, Justin Waring1, Kristian Pollock1, Peter Bates1, Mike Slade1. 1. Ms. Toney, Prof. Pollock, and Prof. Slade are with the Institute of Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom. Mr. Elton and Ms. Munday are with the RECOLLECT Lived Experience Advisory Panel. Ms. Hamill is with the Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicestershire, United Kingdom. Mr. Crowther and Dr. Meddings are with the Sussex Partnership, NHS Foundation Trust, Hove, United Kingdom. Ms. Taylor and Dr. Henderson are with the Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London. Dr. Henderson is also with the South London and Maudsley (SLaM) NHS Foundation Trust, London. Ms. Jennings is with the Department of Occupational Therapy, York St. John University, York, United Kingdom. Prof. Waring is with the Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham. Mr. Bates is with Peter Bates Associates Ltd., Nottingham.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recovery colleges are widespread, with little empirical research on how they work and the outcomes they produce. This study aimed to coproduce a change model characterizing mechanisms of action (how they work) and outcomes (their impact) for mental health service users who attend recovery colleges. METHODS: A systematized review identified all publications about recovery colleges. Inductive collaborative data analysis of 10 key publications by academic researchers and coresearchers with lived experience informed a theoretical framework for mechanisms of action and student outcomes, which was refined through deductive analysis of 34 further publications. A change model was coproduced and refined through stakeholder interviews (N=33). RESULTS: Four mechanisms of action for recovery colleges were identified: empowering environment (safety, respect, and supporting choices), enabling different relationships (power, peers, and working together), facilitating personal growth (for example, coproduced learning, strengths, and celebrating success), and shifting the balance of power through coproduction and reducing power differentials. Outcomes were change in the student (for example, self-understanding and self-confidence) and changes in the student's life (for example, occupational, social, and service use). A coproduced change model mapping mechanisms of action to outcomes was created. CONCLUSIONS: Key features differentiate recovery colleges from traditional services, including an empowering environment, enabling relationships, and growth orientation. Service users who lack confidence, those with whom services struggle to engage, those who will benefit from exposure to peer role models, and those lacking social capital may benefit most. As the first testable characterization of mechanisms and outcomes, the change model allows formal evaluation of recovery colleges.
OBJECTIVE: Recovery colleges are widespread, with little empirical research on how they work and the outcomes they produce. This study aimed to coproduce a change model characterizing mechanisms of action (how they work) and outcomes (their impact) for mental health service users who attend recovery colleges. METHODS: A systematized review identified all publications about recovery colleges. Inductive collaborative data analysis of 10 key publications by academic researchers and coresearchers with lived experience informed a theoretical framework for mechanisms of action and student outcomes, which was refined through deductive analysis of 34 further publications. A change model was coproduced and refined through stakeholder interviews (N=33). RESULTS: Four mechanisms of action for recovery colleges were identified: empowering environment (safety, respect, and supporting choices), enabling different relationships (power, peers, and working together), facilitating personal growth (for example, coproduced learning, strengths, and celebrating success), and shifting the balance of power through coproduction and reducing power differentials. Outcomes were change in the student (for example, self-understanding and self-confidence) and changes in the student's life (for example, occupational, social, and service use). A coproduced change model mapping mechanisms of action to outcomes was created. CONCLUSIONS: Key features differentiate recovery colleges from traditional services, including an empowering environment, enabling relationships, and growth orientation. Service users who lack confidence, those with whom services struggle to engage, those who will benefit from exposure to peer role models, and those lacking social capital may benefit most. As the first testable characterization of mechanisms and outcomes, the change model allows formal evaluation of recovery colleges.
Authors: A Crowther; A Taylor; R Toney; S Meddings; T Whale; H Jennings; K Pollock; P Bates; C Henderson; J Waring; M Slade Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Rebecca Toney; Jane Knight; Kate Hamill; Anna Taylor; Claire Henderson; Adam Crowther; Sara Meddings; Skye Barbic; Helen Jennings; Kristian Pollock; Peter Bates; Julie Repper; Mike Slade Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2018-12-30 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Mike Slade; Stefan Rennick-Egglestone; Laura Blackie; Joy Llewellyn-Beardsley; Donna Franklin; Ada Hui; Graham Thornicroft; Rose McGranahan; Kristian Pollock; Stefan Priebe; Amy Ramsay; David Roe; Emilia Deakin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Elizabeth Lin; Holly Harris; Sam Gruszecki; Kenya A Costa-Dookhan; Terri Rodak; Sanjeev Sockalingam; Sophie Soklaridis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Daniel Hayes; Claire Henderson; Ioannis Bakolis; Vanessa Lawrence; Rachel A Elliott; Amy Ronaldson; Gabrielle Richards; Julie Repper; Peter Bates; John Brewin; Sara Meddings; Gary Winship; Simon Bishop; Richard Emsley; Daniel Elton; Rebecca McNaughton; Rob Whitley; David Smelson; Katy Stepanian; Merly McPhilbin; Danielle Dunnett; Holly Hunter-Brown; Caroline Yeo; Tesnime Jebara; Mike Slade Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2022-09-24 Impact factor: 4.144
Authors: Myra Piat; Megan Wainwright; Marie-Pier Rivest; Eleni Sofouli; Tristan von Kirchenheim; Hélène Albert; Regina Casey; Lise Labonté; Joseph J O'Rourke; Sébastien LeBlanc Journal: Int J Ment Health Syst Date: 2022-10-09