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

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

MFA09 (MFA 2009)

Catalogue of a culminating student exhibition held at the Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum in 2009. Content includes A new paradigm / Carmon Colangelo -- Evolving practices / Patricia Olynyk -- Stephanie Barenz -- Carolyn Dawn Bendel -- Jacob Cruzen -- Rachel Ann Dennis -- Bryan Eaton -- Maya Escobar -- Meredith Foster -- Morgan Gehris -- Gina Grafos -- Stephen Hoskins -- Amelia Jones -- Hye Young Kim -- Anne Lindberg -- Goran Maric -- Kelda Martensen -- Erica L. Millspaugh -- Carianne Noga -- Joel Parker -- Rebecca C. Potts -- Shannon Randol -- Elaine Rickles -- Michael Kenneth Smith -- Dan Solberg -- Natalie Toney -- Glenn Tramantano -- Kathryn Trout -- J. Taylor Wallace.https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/books/1006/thumbnail.jp

Best practice framework for Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: methodology development and refinement

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in mental health research is increasing, especially in early (pre-funding) stages. PPI is less consistent in later stages, including in analysing qualitative data. The aims of this study were to develop a methodology for involving PPI co-researchers in collaboratively analysing qualitative mental health research data with academic researchers, to pilot and refine this methodology, and to create a best practice framework for collaborative data analysis (CDA) of qualitative mental health research. Methods In the context of the RECOLLECT Study of Recovery Colleges, a critical literature review of collaborative data analysis studies was conducted, to identify approaches and recommendations for successful CDA. A CDA methodology was developed and then piloted in RECOLLECT, followed by refinement and development of a best practice framework. Results From 10 included publications, four CDA approaches were identified: (1) consultation, (2) development, (3) application and (4) development and application of coding framework. Four characteristics of successful CDA were found: CDA process is co-produced; CDA process is realistic regarding time and resources; demands of the CDA process are manageable for PPI co-researchers; and group expectations and dynamics are effectively managed. A four-meeting CDA process was piloted to o-produce a coding framework based on qualitative data collected in RECOLLECT and to create a mental health service user-defined change model relevant to Recovery Colleges. Formal and informal feedback demonstrated active involvement. The CDA process involved an extra 80 person-days of time (40 from PPI coresearchers, 40 from academic researchers).The process was refined into a best practice framework comprising Preparation, CDA and Application phases. Conclusions This study has developed a typology of approaches to collaborative analysis of qualitative data in mental health research, identified from available evidence the characteristics of successful involvement, and developed, piloted and refined the first best practice framework for collaborative analysis of qualitative data. This framework has the potential to support meaningful PPI in data analysis in the context of qualitative mental health research studies, a previously neglected yet central part of the research cycle

Identification of a Naegleria fowleri Membrane Protein Reactive with Anti-Human CD59 Antibody

Naegleria fowleri, the causative agent of primary amebic meningoencephalitis, is resistant to complement lysis. The presence of a complement regulatory protein on the surface of N. fowleri was investigated. Southern blot and Northern blot analyses demonstrated hybridization of a radiolabeled cDNA probe for CD59 to genomic DNA and RNA, respectively, from pathogenic N. fowleri. An 18-kDa immunoreactive protein was detected on the membrane of N. fowleri by Western immunoblot and immunofluorescence analyses with monoclonal antibodies for human CD59. Complement component C9 immunoprecipitated with the N. fowleri “CD59-like” protein from amebae incubated with normal human serum. In contrast, a gene or protein similar to CD59 was not detected in nonpathogenic, complement-sensitive N. gruberi amebae. Collectively, our studies suggest that a protein reactive with antibodies to human CD59 is present on the surface of N. fowleri amebae and may play a role in resistance to lysis by cytolytic proteins

Developing Adaptability: A Theory for the Design of Integrated-Embedded Training Systems

[Excerpt] This convergence of forces – environmental, technological, and economic – is driving a reconceptualization of the nature of training systems. Training is shifting from an inefficient, time consuming, and expensive enterprise to one that can be delivered efficiently, as needed, and just-in-time. It is shifting from an off-site single episode to a systematic series of learning experiences that are integrated in the workplace and embedded in work technology. It is shifting from a primary emphasis on retention and reproduction to a broader emphasis that also includes the development of adaptive knowledge and skills (Kozlowski, 1998). Training will not be a separate activity, but a continuous activity that is an integral part of the workplace and its systems. This reconceptualization of training systems is highlighted by three key terms in our title which constitute the theoretical and application focus of this chapter: · Integrate – to form, coordinate, or blend into a functioning or unified whole; · Embed – to enclose closely; to make something an integral part of; · Adapt – to make fit; implies a modification according to changing circumstances; (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1987)

Development and evaluation of a Recovery College fidelity measure

Objective: Recovery Colleges are widespread, with little empirical research on their key components. This study aimed to characterise key components of Recovery Colleges, and to develop and evaluate (i) a developmental checklist and (ii) a quantitative fidelity measure.Methods: Key components were identified through a systematised literature review, international expert consultation (n=77) and semi-structured interviews with Recovery College managers across England (n=10). A checklist was developed, and refined through semi-structured interviews with Recovery College students, trainers and managers (n=44) in three 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 seven non-modifiable components (Valuing equality; Learning; Tailored to the student; Co-production of the Recovery College; Social connectedness; Community focus; and Commitment to recovery) and five 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: Co-production 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