This study provides insights into how PSWs are perceived by psychiatrists. While broadly positive attitudes exist, the research highlights certain challenges, particularly role ambiguity.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide insights into the views and attitudes that psychiatrists have about recovery colleges (RCs). Design/methodology/approach Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten psychiatrists from the Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trust. Findings Psychiatrists had a strong concept of the RC model, and were broadly positive about it, recognising many benefits. Various challenges were also acknowledged including how the RC model interacts with the medical model. Originality/value This is the first known study to explore solely the psychiatrists’ views of RCs, a group who are likely to be particularly influential within services. The sample was relatively unexposed to RCs, enabling insight into how the RC is perceived by those outside of its functioning as well as the state of wider organisational support, which is important for the success of RCs.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo explore the relative frequency of a family history of cholesteatoma in patients with known cholesteatoma, and whether bilateral disease or earlier diagnosis is more likely in those with a family history. Associations between cleft lip or palate and bilateral disease and age of diagnosis were also explored.DesignAn online survey of patients with diagnosed cholesteatoma was conducted between October 2017 and April 2019.ParticipantsThe sample consisted of patients recruited from two UK clinics and self‐selected respondents recruited internationally via social media.Main outcome measuresSide of cholesteatoma, whether respondents had any family history of cholesteatoma, age of diagnosis and personal or family history of cleft lip or palate were recorded.ResultsOf 857 respondents, 89 (10.4%) reported a positive family history of cholesteatoma. Respondents with a family history of cholesteatoma were more likely to have bilateral cholesteatoma (P = .001, odds ratio (OR) 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35‐3.43), but there was no difference in the age of diagnosis (P = .23). Those with a history of cleft lip or palate were not more likely to have bilateral disease (P = .051, OR 2.71, CI 1.00‐7.38), and there was no difference in age of diagnosis (P = .11).ConclusionThe relatively high proportion of respondents that reported a family history of cholesteatoma offers supporting evidence of heritability in cholesteatoma. The use of social media to recruit respondents to this survey means that the results cannot be generalised to other populations with cholesteatoma. Further population‐based research is suggested to determine the heritability of cholesteatoma.