Model Development and Validation of Personal Exposure to Volatile Organic Compound Concentrations

Background: Direct measurement of exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) via personal monitoring is the most accurate exposure assessment method available. However, its wide-scale application to evaluating exposures at the population level is prohibitive in terms of both cost and time. Consequently, indirect measurements via a combination of microenvironment concentrations and personal activity diaries represent a potentially useful alternative. Objective: The aim of this study was to optimize a model of personal exposures (PEs) based on microenvironment concentrations and time/activity diaries and to compare modeled with measured exposures in an independent data set. Materials: VOC PEs and a range of microenvironment concentrations were collected with active samplers and sorbent tubes. Data were supplemented with information collected through questionnaires. Seven models were tested to predict PE to VOCs in 75% (n = 370) of the measured PE data set, whereas the other 25% (n = 120) was used for validation purposes. Results: The best model able to predict PE with independence of measurements was based upon stratified microenvironment concentrations, lifestyle factors, and individual-level activities. The proposed model accounts for 40–85% of the variance for individual VOCs and was validated for almost all VOCs, showing normalized mean bias and mean fractional bias below 25% and predicting 60% of the values within a factor of 2. Conclusions: The models proposed identify the most important non-weather-related variables for VOC exposures; highlight the effect of personal activities, use of solvents, and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke on PE levels; and may assist in the development of specific models for other locations.peer-reviewe

Mechanisms of action and outcomes for students in Recovery Colleges

Objective\ud Recovery Colleges are widespread, with little empirical research on how they work and outcomes they produce. This study aimed to co-produce a change model characterising mechanisms of action and outcomes for mental health service users attending as students at a Recovery College.\ud Methods\ud A systematised review identified all Recovery College publications. Inductive collaborative data analysis by academic researchers and co-researchers with lived experience of ten key papers informed a theoretical framework for mechanisms and outcome for students, which was refined through deductive analysis of 34 further publications. A change model was co-produced and then refined through stakeholder interviews (n=33).\ud Results\ud Three mechanisms of action for Recovery College students were identified: empowering environment (safety, respect, supporting choices), enabling different relationships (power, peers, working together) and facilitating personal growth (e.g. co-produced learning, strengths, celebrating success). Outcomes were change in the student (e.g. self-understanding, self-confidence) and changes in the student’s life (e.g. occupational, social, service use). A co-produced change model mapping mechanisms of action to outcomes was created.\ud Conclusions\ud The key features identified as differentiating Recovery Colleges from traditional services are an empowering environment, enabling relationships and growth orientation. Recovery Colleges may benefit most attenders, but mental health service users to particularly encourage to enrol may include those who lack confidence, those who services struggle to engage with, those who will benefit from exposure to peer role models, and those lacking social capital. The change model provides the first testable characterisation of mechanisms and outcomes, allowing formal evaluation of Recovery Colleges

Organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, funding models, and unit costs of recovery colleges in 28 countries:a cross-sectional survey

Background: Recovery colleges were developed in England to support the recovery of individuals who have mental health symptoms or mental illness. They have been founded in many countries but there has been little international research on recovery colleges and no studies investigating their staffing, fidelity, or costs. We aimed to characterise recovery colleges internationally, to understand organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, and budget. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we identified all countries in which recovery colleges exist. We repeated a cross-sectional survey done in England for recovery colleges in 28 countries. In both surveys, recovery colleges were defined as services that supported personal recovery, that were coproduced with students and staff, and where students learned collaboratively with trainers. Recovery college managers completed the survey. The survey included questions about organisational and student characteristics, fidelity to the RECOLLECT Fidelity Measure, funding models, and unit costs. Recovery colleges were grouped by country and continent and presented descriptively. We used regression models to explore continental differences in fidelity, using England as the reference group. Findings: We identified 221 recovery colleges operating across 28 countries, in five continents. Overall, 174 (79%) of 221 recovery colleges participated. Most recovery colleges scored highly on fidelity. Overall scores for fidelity (β=–2·88, 95% CI 4·44 to –1·32; p=0·0001), coproduction (odds ratio [OR] 0·10, 95% CI 0·03 to 0·33;

Organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, funding models, and unit costs of recovery colleges in 28 countries: a cross-sectional survey

Background: Recovery colleges were developed in England to support the recovery of individuals who have mental health symptoms or mental illness. They have been founded in many countries but there has been little international research on recovery colleges and no studies investigating their staffing, fidelity, or costs. We aimed to characterise recovery colleges internationally, to understand organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, and budget. // Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we identified all countries in which recovery colleges exist. We repeated a cross-sectional survey done in England for recovery colleges in 28 countries. In both surveys, recovery colleges were defined as services that supported personal recovery, that were coproduced with students and staff, and where students learned collaboratively with trainers. Recovery college managers completed the survey. The survey included questions about organisational and student characteristics, fidelity to the RECOLLECT Fidelity Measure, funding models, and unit costs. Recovery colleges were grouped by country and continent and presented descriptively. We used regression models to explore continental differences in fidelity, using England as the reference group. // Findings: We identified 221 recovery colleges operating across 28 countries, in five continents. Overall, 174 (79%) of 221 recovery colleges participated. Most recovery colleges scored highly on fidelity. Overall scores for fidelity (β=–2·88, 95% CI 4·44 to –1·32; p=0·0001), coproduction (odds ratio [OR] 0·10, 95% CI 0·03 to 0·33; p<0·0001), and being tailored to the student (OR 0·10, 0·02 to 0·39; p=0·0010), were lower for recovery colleges in Asia than in England. No other significant differences were identified between recovery colleges in England, and those in other continents where recovery colleges were present. 133 recovery colleges provided data on annual budgets, which ranged from €0 to €2 550 000, varying extensively within and between continents. From included data, all annual budgets reported by the college added up to €30 million, providing 19 864 courses for 55 161 students. // Interpretation: Recovery colleges exist in many countries. There is an international consensus on key operating principles, especially equality and a commitment to recovery, and most recovery colleges achieve moderate to high fidelity to the original model, irrespective of the income band of their country. Cultural differences need to be considered in assessing coproduction and approaches to individualising support. // Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research

Mechanisms of action and outcomes for students in Recovery Colleges

Objective Recovery Colleges are widespread, with little empirical research on how they work and outcomes they produce. This study aimed to co-produce a change model characterising mechanisms of action and outcomes for mental health service users attending as students at a Recovery College. Methods A systematised review identified all Recovery College publications. Inductive collaborative data analysis by academic researchers and co-researchers with lived experience of ten key papers informed a theoretical framework for mechanisms and outcome for students, which was refined through deductive analysis of 34 further publications. A change model was co-produced and then refined through stakeholder interviews (n=33). Results Three mechanisms of action for Recovery College students were identified: empowering environment (safety, respect, supporting choices), enabling different relationships (power, peers, working together) and facilitating personal growth (e.g. co-produced learning, strengths, celebrating success). Outcomes were change in the student (e.g. self-understanding, self-confidence) and changes in the student’s life (e.g. occupational, social, service use). A co-produced change model mapping mechanisms of action to outcomes was created. Conclusions The key features identified as differentiating Recovery Colleges from traditional services are an empowering environment, enabling relationships and growth orientation. Recovery Colleges may benefit most attenders, but mental health service users to particularly encourage to enrol may include those who lack confidence, those who services struggle to engage with, those who will benefit from exposure to peer role models, and those lacking social capital. The change model provides the first testable characterisation of mechanisms and outcomes, allowing formal evaluation of Recovery Colleges

Mechanisms of action and outcomes for students in Recovery Colleges

Objective Recovery Colleges are widespread, with little empirical research on how they work and outcomes they produce. This study aimed to co-produce a change model characterising mechanisms of action and outcomes for mental health service users attending as students at a Recovery College. Methods A systematised review identified all Recovery College publications. Inductive collaborative data analysis by academic researchers and co-researchers with lived experience of ten key papers informed a theoretical framework for mechanisms and outcome for students, which was refined through deductive analysis of 34 further publications. A change model was co-produced and then refined through stakeholder interviews (n=33). Results Three mechanisms of action for Recovery College students were identified: empowering environment (safety, respect, supporting choices), enabling different relationships (power, peers, working together) and facilitating personal growth (e.g. co-produced learning, strengths, celebrating success). Outcomes were change in the student (e.g. self-understanding, self-confidence) and changes in the student’s life (e.g. occupational, social, service use). A co-produced change model mapping mechanisms of action to outcomes was created. Conclusions The key features identified as differentiating Recovery Colleges from traditional services are an empowering environment, enabling relationships and growth orientation. Recovery Colleges may benefit most attenders, but mental health service users to particularly encourage to enrol may include those who lack confidence, those who services struggle to engage with, those who will benefit from exposure to peer role models, and those lacking social capital. The change model provides the first testable characterisation of mechanisms and outcomes, allowing formal evaluation of Recovery Colleges

Organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, funding models, and unit costs of recovery colleges in 28 countries:a cross-sectional survey

Background: Recovery colleges were developed in England to support the recovery of individuals who have mental health symptoms or mental illness. They have been founded in many countries but there has been little international research on recovery colleges and no studies investigating their staffing, fidelity, or costs. We aimed to characterise recovery colleges internationally, to understand organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, and budget. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we identified all countries in which recovery colleges exist. We repeated a cross-sectional survey done in England for recovery colleges in 28 countries. In both surveys, recovery colleges were defined as services that supported personal recovery, that were coproduced with students and staff, and where students learned collaboratively with trainers. Recovery college managers completed the survey. The survey included questions about organisational and student characteristics, fidelity to the RECOLLECT Fidelity Measure, funding models, and unit costs. Recovery colleges were grouped by country and continent and presented descriptively. We used regression models to explore continental differences in fidelity, using England as the reference group. Findings: We identified 221 recovery colleges operating across 28 countries, in five continents. Overall, 174 (79%) of 221 recovery colleges participated. Most recovery colleges scored highly on fidelity. Overall scores for fidelity (β=–2·88, 95% CI 4·44 to –1·32; p=0·0001), coproduction (odds ratio [OR] 0·10, 95% CI 0·03 to 0·33; p&lt;0·0001), and being tailored to the student (OR 0·10, 0·02 to 0·39; p=0·0010), were lower for recovery colleges in Asia than in England. No other significant differences were identified between recovery colleges in England, and those in other continents where recovery colleges were present. 133 recovery colleges provided data on annual budgets, which ranged from €0 to €2 550 000, varying extensively within and between continents. From included data, all annual budgets reported by the college added up to €30 million, providing 19 864 courses for 55 161 students. Interpretation: Recovery colleges exist in many countries. There is an international consensus on key operating principles, especially equality and a commitment to recovery, and most recovery colleges achieve moderate to high fidelity to the original model, irrespective of the income band of their country. Cultural differences need to be considered in assessing coproduction and approaches to individualising support. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.</p

Organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, funding models, and unit costs of recovery colleges in 28 countries: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Recovery colleges were developed in England to support the recovery of individuals who have mental health symptoms or mental illness. They have been founded in many countries but there has been little international research on recovery colleges and no studies investigating their staffing, fidelity, or costs. We aimed to characterise recovery colleges internationally, to understand organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, and budget. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified all countries in which recovery colleges exist. We repeated a cross-sectional survey done in England for recovery colleges in 28 countries. In both surveys, recovery colleges were defined as services that supported personal recovery, that were coproduced with students and staff, and where students learned collaboratively with trainers. Recovery college managers completed the survey. The survey included questions about organisational and student characteristics, fidelity to the RECOLLECT Fidelity Measure, funding models, and unit costs. Recovery colleges were grouped by country and continent and presented descriptively. We used regression models to explore continental differences in fidelity, using England as the reference group. FINDINGS: We identified 221 recovery colleges operating across 28 countries, in five continents. Overall, 174 (79%) of 221 recovery colleges participated. Most recovery colleges scored highly on fidelity. Overall scores for fidelity (β=-2·88, 95% CI 4·44 to -1·32; p=0·0001), coproduction (odds ratio [OR] 0·10, 95% CI 0·03 to 0·33; p<0·0001), and being tailored to the student (OR 0·10, 0·02 to 0·39; p=0·0010), were lower for recovery colleges in Asia than in England. No other significant differences were identified between recovery colleges in England, and those in other continents where recovery colleges were present. 133 recovery colleges provided data on annual budgets, which ranged from €0 to €2 550 000, varying extensively within and between continents. From included data, all annual budgets reported by the college added up to €30 million, providing 19 864 courses for 55 161 students. INTERPRETATION: Recovery colleges exist in many countries. There is an international consensus on key operating principles, especially equality and a commitment to recovery, and most recovery colleges achieve moderate to high fidelity to the original model, irrespective of the income band of their country. Cultural differences need to be considered in assessing coproduction and approaches to individualising support. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research