Evaluating recovery colleges: a co-created scoping review

Lin, Elizabeth; Harris, Holly; Black, Georgia; Bellissimo, Gail; Giandomenico, Anna Di; Rodak, Terri; Costa-Dookhan, Kenya A.; Shier, Rowen; Rovet, Jordana; Gruszecki, Sam; Soklaridis, Sophie

doi:10.1080/09638237.2022.2140788

Cited by 15 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, such measures potentially clash with the organizational principles of RCs. As recounted by Perkins et al (2018), in RCs ‘The ethos is that everyone learns together and from each other’ (p. 4), and RCs represent ‘a culture of equity and inclusion where everyone's assets, strengths, resources, and networks are celebrated and leveraged’ (Lin et al, 2022,p. 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent review found that 89 pct. of RCs include staff participants (Lin et al, 2022, p. 6). However, if the students who participate as mental health care staff do not think they need the courses, or if they do not feel they have any experiences to share, the purpose of participating to counter stigmatization and create parity may not transform into a meaningful engagement with course assignments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some RC studies adopt ‘the RC ethos’ to create entirely co‐produced research where academic scholars and recovery staff design, manage and disseminate research in partnerships (Yoeli et al, 2022, p. 1). A recent review argued that co‐creation should always be part of RC evaluations (Lin et al, 2022). While our study is not co‐produced in this sense, we recognize the merits, strengths and transformative capacities of the co‐production approach in mental health care research (Gordon & O'Brien, 2018).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, they also concluded that RC evaluations with strong research designs remain few (Toney et al, 2018). In 2022, a new review stated that the lack of comprehensive, robust research is ‘a significant concern given the rapid global expansion of RCs’ (Lin et al, 2022, p. 2). A third review stated that evaluations of RCs tend to ‘suffer from self‐selecting samples leading to an overwhelmingly positive experience’ and concludes that: ‘Evaluation by independent researchers is paramount’.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Recovery college dropout: A qualitative study of external, relational and course‐related dropout drivers in co‐produced mental health care

Andersen

Waldemar

Kirkegaard

2023

Int J Mental Health Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recovery colleges (RCs) are rapidly spreading across Western countries, and research indicates beneficial outcomes of this co‐produced model of mental health care. Meanwhile, risks of adverse outcomes and RC dropout remain understudied. To address this research gap, we conducted qualitative interviews with 14 participants who dropped out of RC courses in Denmark. This article, adhering to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ), presents a typology of the main dropout drivers identified in our sample: external, relational and course‐related. External drivers involve practical obstacles, for example some participants feared taking public transportation and lacked access to alternative means of travelling to the courses. Relational drivers entail distressing interactions with educators or peer students, for example some participants felt stigmatized or intimidated. Course‐related drivers concern the content of the courses, for example some students considered the academic level too basic as their design did not take prior learning into account, while others experienced a sense of alienation because they were unable or unwilling to share the kind of personal experiences course assignments envisaged. In the discussion of our findings, we consider how different types of drivers call for different modes of responses. We discuss dilemmas related to the proposed responses for reducing or accepting RC dropout.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recovery college dropout: A qualitative study of external, relational and course‐related dropout drivers in co‐produced mental health care

Andersen

Waldemar

Kirkegaard

2023

Int J Mental Health Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our qualitative research project explored the use of coproduction principles in RC evaluations through two simultaneous phases. In the first phase, we cocreated a scoping review that examined how RCs were evaluated and whether those evaluations were coproduced with people accessing RCs (Lin et al, 2022a(Lin et al, , 2022b. In the second phase, we interviewed people accessing, volunteering and/or working in RCs to explore two research questions:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“My words matter”: perspectives on evaluation from people who access and work in recovery colleges

Soklaridis

Shier²,

Black³

et al. 2023

MHSI

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this co-produced research project was to conduct interviews with people working in, volunteering with and accessing Canadian recovery colleges (RCs) to explore their perspectives on what an evaluation strategy for RCs could look like. Design/methodology/approach This study used a participatory action research approach and involved semistructured interviews with 29 people involved with RCs across Canada. Findings In this paper, the authors share insights from participants about the purposes of RC evaluation; key elements of evaluation; and the most applicable and effective approaches to evaluation. Participants indicated that RC evaluations should use a personalized, humanistic and accessible approach. The findings suggest that evaluations can serve multiple purposes and have the potential to support both organizational and personal-recovery goals if they are developed with meaningful input from people who access and work in RCs. Practical implications The findings can be used to guide evaluations in which aspects that are most important to those involved in RCs could inform choices, decisions, priorities, developments and adaptations in RC evaluation processes and, ultimately, in programming. Originality/value A recent scoping review revealed that although coproduction is a central feature of the RC model, coproduction principles are rarely acknowledged in descriptions of how RC evaluation strategies are developed. Exploring coproduction processes in all aspects of the RC model, including evaluation, can further the mission of RCs, which is to create spaces where people can come together and engage in mutual capacity-building and collaboration.

show abstract

The operationalisation of recovery colleges: A scoping review

Jones,

Crawford,

Mahboub

et al. 2024

Health Prom J of Aust

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRecovery Colleges (RCs) represent an approach to enhancing mental wellbeing through education, lived experience and co‐production. Despite their increasing presence, scant literature explores the operationalisation of RCs and their embodiment of co‐production principles. The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the operationalisation of RCs and their application of co‐production in RCs located in high‐income countries over the past decade.MethodsEmploying an established scoping review methodology, searches were conducted across seven academic databases. Ten primary studies met the inclusion criteria. In addition, stakeholders were consulted to validate themes and uncover knowledge gaps.ResultsFindings suggest that RCs are inherently idiosyncratic, adapted to suit local contexts. Discussions persist regarding their optimal institutional contexts and positioning and the interpretation of key terms such as ‘recovery’ and ‘co‐production’, influencing daily operations and stakeholder involvement. Challenges surrounding measuring success against fidelity criteria underscore the need for a broader understanding of RC value and sustainability.ConclusionThis review offers a synopsis of the existing literature offering insights concerning the operationalisation of RCs. Through a synthesis of diverse primary studies, it systematically identifies and describes the operational nuances within the RC landscape and the fundamental elements underpinning RC operations, while shedding light on critical knowledge gaps in both research and practice.So What?This review underscores the importance of a broader understanding of RC value and sustainability, offering insights for both research and practice in the field of mental health and wellbeing. This review highlights the significance of further exploration and refinement of RC operationalisation to enhance their effectiveness and impact in supporting mental wellbeing.

show abstract

Evaluating recovery colleges: a co-created scoping review

Cited by 15 publications

References 68 publications

Recovery college dropout: A qualitative study of external, relational and course‐related dropout drivers in co‐produced mental health care

Recovery college dropout: A qualitative study of external, relational and course‐related dropout drivers in co‐produced mental health care

“My words matter”: perspectives on evaluation from people who access and work in recovery colleges

The operationalisation of recovery colleges: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About