Evaluating recovery colleges: a co-created scoping review.
Recovery college
co-creation
evaluation
scoping review
Journal
Journal of mental health (Abingdon, England)
ISSN: 1360-0567
Titre abrégé: J Ment Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9212352
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
medline:
27
7
2023
pubmed:
9
11
2022
entrez:
8
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recovery Colleges (RCs) are education-based centres providing information, networking, and skills development for managing mental health, well-being, and daily living. A central principle is co-creation involving people with lived experience of mental health/illness and/or addictions (MHA). Identified gaps are RCs evaluations and information about whether such evaluations are co-created. We describe a co-created scoping review of how RCs are evaluated in the published and grey literature. Also assessed were: the frameworks, designs, and analyses used; the themes/outcomes reported; the trustworthiness of the evidence; and whether the evaluations are co-created. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodology with one important modification: "Consultation" was re-conceptualised as "co-creator engagement" and was the first, foundational step rather than the last, optional one. Seventy-nine percent of the 43 included evaluations were peer-reviewed, 21% grey literature. These evaluations represented 33 RCs located in the UK (58%), Australia (15%), Canada (9%), Ireland (9%), the USA (6%), and Italy (3%). Our findings depict a developing field that is exploring a mix of evaluative approaches. However, few evaluations appeared to be co-created. Although most studies referenced co-design/co-production, few described how much or how meaningfully people with lived experience were involved in the evaluation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
UNASSIGNED
Recovery Colleges (RCs) are education-based centres providing information, networking, and skills development for managing mental health, well-being, and daily living. A central principle is co-creation involving people with lived experience of mental health/illness and/or addictions (MHA). Identified gaps are RCs evaluations and information about whether such evaluations are co-created.
AIMS
UNASSIGNED
We describe a co-created scoping review of how RCs are evaluated in the published and grey literature. Also assessed were: the frameworks, designs, and analyses used; the themes/outcomes reported; the trustworthiness of the evidence; and whether the evaluations are co-created.
METHODS
UNASSIGNED
We followed Arksey and O'Malley's methodology with one important modification: "Consultation" was re-conceptualised as "co-creator engagement" and was the first, foundational step rather than the last, optional one.
RESULTS
UNASSIGNED
Seventy-nine percent of the 43 included evaluations were peer-reviewed, 21% grey literature. These evaluations represented 33 RCs located in the UK (58%), Australia (15%), Canada (9%), Ireland (9%), the USA (6%), and Italy (3%).
CONCLUSION
UNASSIGNED
Our findings depict a developing field that is exploring a mix of evaluative approaches. However, few evaluations appeared to be co-created. Although most studies referenced co-design/co-production, few described how much or how meaningfully people with lived experience were involved in the evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36345859
doi: 10.1080/09638237.2022.2140788
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM