Contextual factors influencing Recovery College fidelity, mechanisms of change & student outcomes.

Vanessa KELLERMANN¹, Holly HUNTER-BROWN¹, Lisa BROPHY², Stella LAWRENCE³, Mike SLADE⁴, Claire HENDERSON¹

¹Health Services & Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
²Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
³RECOLLECT Lived Experience Advisory Panel, London, United Kingdom
⁴School of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom

Introduction: Recovery Colleges (RCs) are a relatively recent initiative within the mental health care system and currently established in 22 countries, internationally. Key principles include collaborative, strengths-based, person-centred, inclusive, and community-focused approaches, supporting people with mental health problems, their carers, and mental health staff via adult-education. Individuals with lived experience co-produce all aspects of the RC including curriculum development, quality assurance and delivering courses, alongside a trainer with topic-specific expertise. The aims of this study are to establish key contextual and organisational factors influencing fidelity and variation in outcomes and to finalise the RECOLLECT 2 multilevel change model.

Methods: This study encompasses a set of organisational case studies, utilising qualitative methods to assess the contextual and organisational factors influencing delivery and fidelity of six Recovery Colleges, as well as perceived outcomes for their students. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with RC managers, commissioners and other members of staff. A diverse group of current and former students were invited to Focus Groups (FGs) to explore perceived impact and outcomes of attending respective RCs. Collaborative data analysis involving LEAP members using framework analysis was employed, using NVivo in co-produced sessions. Cross-case comparison elaborates the key contextual and organisational factors influencing the delivery of service and explaining variation in access, fidelity and outcome.

Results: 10 members of staff in different roles were interviewed per RC. Up to four FGs of 6-8 participants per RC were conducted to represent varying groups of service users, carers and staff attending courses.

Discussion/Conclusion: Preliminary findings of the conducted interviews and FGs will be presented. Themes relating to the impact of RCs on their staff, students, and communities as well as variation in organisational aspects will be outlined and discussed in regard their influence on implications for future research and practice.