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

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

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

Evidence-based Recovery Colleges: developing a typology based on organisational characteristics, fidelity, and funding

PURPOSE: Recovery Colleges (RCs) have been implemented across England with wide variation in organisational characteristics. The purpose of this study is to describe RCs across England in terms of organisational and student characteristics, fidelity and annual spending, to generate a RC typology based on characteristics and to explore the relationship between characteristics and fidelity. METHODS: All RC in England meeting criteria on recovery orientation, coproduction and adult learning were included. Managers completed a survey capturing characteristics, fdelity and budget. Hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to identify common groupings and generate an RC typology. RESULTS: Participants comprised 63 (72%) of 88 RC in England. Fidelity scores were high (median 11, IQR 9–13). Both NHS and strengths-focussed RCs were associated with higher fdelity. The median annual budget was £200,000 (IQR £127,000–£300,000) per RC. The median cost per student was £518 (IQR £275–£840), cost per course designed was £5,556 (IQR £3,000–£9,416) and per course run was £1,510 (IQR £682–£3,030). The total annual budget across England for RCs is an estimated £17.6 m including £13.4 m from NHS budgets, with 11,000 courses delivered to 45,500 students. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of RCs had high levels of fdelity, there were sufciently pronounced diferences in other key characteristics to generate a typology of RCs. This typology might prove important for understanding student outcomes and how they are achieved and for commissioning decisions. Stafng and co-producing new courses are key drivers of spending. The estimated budget for RCs was less than 1% of NHS mental health spending

Recovery College characteristics, fidelity, commissioning models and unit costs: a cross-sectional global survey of 28 countries

BackgroundRecovery Colleges (RCs) support the recovery of individuals who have mental health issues. There has been little international research on RCs and none investigating costs, staffing, or fidelity. We aimed to characterise RCs internationally exploring organisational and student characteristics, fidelity and budget.MethodsWe conducted an observational study integrating two equivalent cross-sectional surveys. Services that supported personal recovery, were coproduced with students and staff, and where students collaboratively learnt with trainers, were included. Managers completed the survey. There was no primary outcome. RCs were grouped by country and continent and presented descriptively. We used regression models to explore continental differences in fidelity.OutcomesWe identified 221 RCs operating across 28 countries, spanning five continents. Overall, 174 (79%) RCs participated. Most scored high on fidelity. Compared with England, RCs in Asia scored lower on overall fidelity, ‘coproduction’ and ‘tailored to the student’. Annual budgets in the 133 (60%) colleges providing economic data were €0-2,550,000, varying extensively within and between continents. From included data, annual budgets totalled €30m, providing 19,864 courses for 55,161 students.InterpretationRCs exist in many countries. There is an international consensus on key operating principles, especially equality and a commitment to recovery, and most RCs achieve moderate to high fidelity, irrespective of the income band of their country. Cultural differences need to be considered in assessing coproduction and approaches to individualising support

Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing in England (RECOLLECT): rationale and protocol

BACKGROUND: Recovery Colleges are a relatively recent initiative within mental health services. The first opened in 2009 in London and since then numbers have grown. They are based on principles of personal recovery in mental health, co-production between people with lived experience of mental health problems and professionals, and adult learning. Student eligibility criteria vary, but all serve people who use mental health services, with empirical evidence of benefit. Previously we developed a Recovery College fidelity measure and a preliminary change model identifying the mechanisms of action and outcomes for this group, which we refer to as service user students. The Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing (RECOLLECT) study is a five-year (2020–2025) programme of research in England. The aim of RECOLLECT is to determine Recovery Colleges’ effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and identify organisational influences on fidelity and improvements in mental health outcomes.  METHODS: RECOLLECT comprises i) a national survey of Recovery Colleges, ii) a prospective cohort study to establish the relationship between fidelity, mechanisms of action and psychosocial outcomes, iii) a prospective cohort study to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, iv) a retrospective cohort study to determine the relationship between Recovery College use and outcomes and mental health service use, and v) organisational case studies to establish the contextual and organisational factors influencing fidelity and outcomes. The programme has been developed with input from individuals who have lived experience of mental health problems. A Lived Experience Advisory Panel will provide input into all stages of the research. DISCUSSION: RECOLLECT will provide the first rigorous evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Recovery Colleges in England, to inform their prioritising, commissioning, and running. The validated RECOLLECT multilevel change model will confirm the active components of Recovery Colleges. The fidelity measure and evidence about the fidelity-outcome relationship will provide an empirically-based approach to develop Recovery Colleges, to maximise benefits for students. Findings will be disseminated through the study website (researchintorecovery.com/recollect) and via national and international Recovery College networks to maximise impact, and will shape policy on how Recovery Colleges can help those with mental health problems lead empowered, meaningful and fulfilling lives

How the pandemic changed Recovery Colleges: A multi-site qualitative study

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health problems increased whilst access to clinical mental health services reduced. Recovery Colleges (RCs) are recovery-focussed adult education initiatives delivered by people with professional and lived mental health expertise. Designed to be collaborative and inclusive, RCs were uniquely positioned to support people experiencing mental health problems during the pandemic. There is limited research exploring the lasting impacts of the pandemic on RC operation and delivery to students.Aims: To ascertain how the COVID-19 pandemic changed the operation of RCs in England.Method: A coproduced qualitative interview study of RC managers across the UK. Academics and coresearchers with lived mental health experience collaborated on conducting interviews and analysing data using a collaborative thematic framework analysis.Results: Thirty-one RC managers participated. Five themes were identified: Complex organisational relationships; Changed ways of working; Navigating the rapid transition to digital delivery; Responding to isolation; and Changes to accessibility. Two key pandemic-related changes to RC operation were highlighted: their use as accessible services that relieve pressure on mental health services through hybrid face-to-face and digital course delivery; and the development of digitally delivered courses for individuals with mental health needs.Conclusions: The pandemic either led to or accelerated developments in RC operation, leading to a positioning of RCs as a preventative service with wider accessibility to: people with mental health problems; people under the care of forensic mental health services; and mental healthcare staff. These benefits are strengthened by relationships with partner organisations and autonomy from statutory healthcare infrastructures

Cross-cultural insights from two global mental health studies: self-enhancement and ingroup biases

This Commentary highlights two cross-cultural issues identified from our global mental health (GMH) research, RECOLLECT (Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing) 2: Selfenhancement and ingroup biases. Self-enhancement is a tendency to maintain and express unrealistically positive self-views. Ingroup biases are differences in one’s evaluation of others belonging to the same social group. These biases are discussed in the context of GMH research using self-report measures across cultures. GMH, a field evolving since its Lancet series introduction in 2007, aims to advance mental health equity and human rights. Despite a 16.5- fold increase in annual GMH studies from 2007 to 2016, cross-cultural understanding remains underdeveloped. We discuss the impact of individualism versus collectivism on selfenhancement and ingroup biases. GMH research using concepts, outcomes, and methods aligned with individualism, may give advantages to people and services oriented to individualism. GMH research needs to address these biases arising from cross-cultural differences to achieve its aim