BJPsych open · 2026
Organisational variation in Recovery College implementation: 31-college qualitative study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Takhi Simran K, Jebara Tesnime, McPhilbin Merly, Stepanian Katy, Dunnett Danielle, Grant-Rowles Jason, Osman Yasma, Winship Gary, Repper Julie, Ronaldson Amy, Namasaba Mariam, Kotera Yasuhiro, Bates Peter, Lawrence Simon, Kapka Agnieszka, Meddings Sara, Rennison Jane, Patmore Louise, Henderson Claire, Slade Mike, Bishop Simon, Lawrence Vanessa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: By 2021, we found that 88 Recovery Colleges were operating in England. Recovery Colleges adhere to shared principles including adult education and co-production, but are also heterogeneous, varying in the populations they serve, their sources of funding and access to resources. Previous research has not explored the organisational factors that influence the set-up of Recovery Colleges, nor the factors which facilitate or pose challenges to their sustainable operation.
AIMS: To identify how Recovery Colleges vary in their operation and to ascertain how organisational factors facilitate or hinder the set-up, running and sustainability of English Recovery Colleges.
METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with 31 Recovery College managers across England were analysed using framework analysis.
RESULTS: Four themes were identified: Recovery College pioneers; Adapting to the local context; Degree of autonomy within the National Health Service; and Ongoing organisational work. Colleges were commonly established by key individuals from diverse backgrounds, leveraging their organisational positions and lived experience to facilitate implementation. Colleges were adapted to fit local contexts, shaped by factors including existing services, regional demographics and community resources. Colleges varied in their relations with key funders, with some operating comparatively autonomously and others tied closely to their 'parent' organisations. Sustaining college operations involved ongoing organisational work to respond to changing pressures.
CONCLUSIONS: Recovery Colleges exhibit consistent values and aims oriented around supporting recovery through education and co-production but are diverse in their operation. These colleges are highly complex interventions, and their sustainability requires organisational agility to manage competing pressures.
AIMS: To identify how Recovery Colleges vary in their operation and to ascertain how organisational factors facilitate or hinder the set-up, running and sustainability of English Recovery Colleges.
METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with 31 Recovery College managers across England were analysed using framework analysis.
RESULTS: Four themes were identified: Recovery College pioneers; Adapting to the local context; Degree of autonomy within the National Health Service; and Ongoing organisational work. Colleges were commonly established by key individuals from diverse backgrounds, leveraging their organisational positions and lived experience to facilitate implementation. Colleges were adapted to fit local contexts, shaped by factors including existing services, regional demographics and community resources. Colleges varied in their relations with key funders, with some operating comparatively autonomously and others tied closely to their 'parent' organisations. Sustaining college operations involved ongoing organisational work to respond to changing pressures.
CONCLUSIONS: Recovery Colleges exhibit consistent values and aims oriented around supporting recovery through education and co-production but are diverse in their operation. These colleges are highly complex interventions, and their sustainability requires organisational agility to manage competing pressures.