Rebecca Toney1, Jane Knight2, Kate Hamill3, Anna Taylor4, Claire Henderson4,5, Adam Crowther6, Sara Meddings6, Skye Barbic7, Helen Jennings8, Kristian Pollock1, Peter Bates9, Julie Repper10, Mike Slade1. 1. 1 School of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2. 2 RECOLLECT Lived Experience Advisory Panel, Nottingham, UK. 3. 3 Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust, Leicester, UK. 4. 4 Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, London, UK. 5. 5 South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 6. 6 Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, East Sussex, UK. 7. 7 Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. 8. 8 Occupational Therapy, York St John University, York, UK. 9. 9 Peter Bates Associates Ltd, Nottingham, UK. 10. 10 ImROC, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recovery Colleges are widespread, with little empirical research on their key components. This study aimed to characterize key components of Recovery Colleges and to develop and evaluate a developmental checklist and a quantitative fidelity measure. METHODS: Key components were identified through a systematized literature review, international expert consultation (n = 77), and semistructured interviews with Recovery College managers across England (n = 10). A checklist was developed and refined through semistructured interviews with Recovery College students, trainers, and managers (n = 44) in 3 sites. A fidelity measure was adapted from the checklist and evaluated with Recovery College managers (n = 39, 52%), clinicians providing psychoeducational courses (n = 11), and adult education lecturers (n = 10). RESULTS: Twelve components were identified, comprising 7 nonmodifiable components (Valuing Equality, Learning, Tailored to the Student, Coproduction of the Recovery College, Social Connectedness, Community Focus, and Commitment to Recovery) and 5 modifiable components (Available to All, Location, Distinctiveness of Course Content, Strengths Based, and Progressive). The checklist has service user student, peer trainer, and manager versions. The fidelity measure meets scaling assumptions and demonstrates adequate internal consistency (0.72), test-retest reliability (0.60), content validity, and discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: Coproduction and an orientation to adult learning should be the highest priority in developing Recovery Colleges. The creation of the first theory-based empirically evaluated developmental checklist and fidelity measure (both downloadable at researchintorecovery.com/recollect ) for Recovery Colleges will help service users understand what Recovery Colleges offer, will inform decision making by clinicians and commissioners about Recovery Colleges, and will enable formal evaluation of their impact on students.
OBJECTIVE: Recovery Colleges are widespread, with little empirical research on their key components. This study aimed to characterize key components of Recovery Colleges and to develop and evaluate a developmental checklist and a quantitative fidelity measure. METHODS: Key components were identified through a systematized literature review, international expert consultation (n = 77), and semistructured interviews with Recovery College managers across England (n = 10). A checklist was developed and refined through semistructured interviews with Recovery College students, trainers, and managers (n = 44) in 3 sites. A fidelity measure was adapted from the checklist and evaluated with Recovery College managers (n = 39, 52%), clinicians providing psychoeducational courses (n = 11), and adult education lecturers (n = 10). RESULTS: Twelve components were identified, comprising 7 nonmodifiable components (Valuing Equality, Learning, Tailored to the Student, Coproduction of the Recovery College, Social Connectedness, Community Focus, and Commitment to Recovery) and 5 modifiable components (Available to All, Location, Distinctiveness of Course Content, Strengths Based, and Progressive). The checklist has service user student, peer trainer, and manager versions. The fidelity measure meets scaling assumptions and demonstrates adequate internal consistency (0.72), test-retest reliability (0.60), content validity, and discriminant validity. CONCLUSIONS: Coproduction and an orientation to adult learning should be the highest priority in developing Recovery Colleges. The creation of the first theory-based empirically evaluated developmental checklist and fidelity measure (both downloadable at researchintorecovery.com/recollect ) for Recovery Colleges will help service users understand what Recovery Colleges offer, will inform decision making by clinicians and commissioners about Recovery Colleges, and will enable formal evaluation of their impact on students.
Entities:
Keywords:
coproduction; fidelity; health services research; recovery education; schizophrenia
Authors: Clair Le Boutillier; Mary Leamy; Victoria J Bird; Larry Davidson; Julie Williams; Mike Slade Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: M Slade; M Leamy; F Bacon; M Janosik; C Le Boutillier; J Williams; V Bird Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 6.892
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: 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: Rose McGranahan; Stefan Rennick-Egglestone; Amy Ramsay; Joy Llewellyn-Beardsley; Simon Bradstreet; Felicity Callard; Stefan Priebe; Mike Slade Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2019-10-04
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: Stefan Rennick-Egglestone; Amy Ramsay; Rose McGranahan; Joy Llewellyn-Beardsley; Ada Hui; Kristian Pollock; Julie Repper; Caroline Yeo; Fiona Ng; James Roe; Steve Gillard; Graham Thornicroft; Susie Booth; Mike Slade Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 3.240