Co-producing a recovery college course: insights into a three-phase participatory process and contributions.

INTRODUCTION: This article provides a concrete example of a co-production process used to develop a Recovery College course about eating attitudes and behaviors. It has a dual purpose: (1) to document a three-phase participatory research approach underpinning course co-production and (2) to examine the contributions of this process, highlighting benefits for both the course and the experiential trainers involved.

METHODS: The study was conducted at Quebec's first Recovery College using participatory design into three sequential phases: (1) a co-production phase combining collaborative and independent working sessions supported by participatory design tools (course co-production template and program theory model); (2) a co-validation phase involving a mixed-expertise consultation group; and (3) an initial experimentation phase across four learner groups over one year. A diverse qualitative corpus including audio recordings, research journal, audit trail grid of course improvements, transcripts of individual interviews with trainers and experimentation diary was analyzed using an analytical inquiry strategy.

RESULTS: The findings show that translating complementarity between experiential, clinical, and theoretical knowledge into concrete processes requires specific practices, notably open discussions, an organized work structure and clarified roles, alongside the use of complementary co-production tools. The articulation of co-production and co-validation phases strengthened capacities at two levels. At the intervention level, these processes supported the refinement, coherence, and safety of course content for a sensitive topic. At the trainers' level, participation across phases contributed to power-sharing between trainers that contributed to the recognition and development of experiential expertise.

DISCUSSION: Detailed empirical accounts of how co-production is operationalized in Recovery College course development remain scarce. This study offers a transferable, step-by-step illustration of how complementarity work can be enacted through structured practices and tools. The proposed three-phase process and associated tools provide actionable guidance for Recovery Colleges and other health organizations seeking to implement co-production, support experiential experts, and enhance course quality when addressing sensitive topics. (277/250 mots).