Evaluating recovery colleges: a co-created scoping review

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.

康复学院（Recovery Colleges, RCs）是一类以教育为核心的机构，为人群提供心理健康、福祉维护与日常生活管理相关的信息、社交网络搭建及技能发展服务。其核心原则为共创，即邀请拥有心理健康/精神疾病或成瘾（Mental Health/Illness and/or Addictions, MHA）亲身经历的群体参与其中。当前研究发现的空白在于：现有研究对康复学院的评估情况，以及此类评估是否采用共创模式的相关信息均较为匮乏。本研究针对已发表文献及灰色文献中有关康复学院评估方式的内容，开展了一项共创式范围综述（scoping review）。本次综述同时评估了现有研究中所采用的评估框架、研究设计与分析方法，所报告的主题/研究结果，证据的可信度，以及评估过程是否采用共创模式。本研究遵循Arksey与O’Malley提出的范围综述方法学框架，但做出了一项重要调整：将原方法中的"Consultation"环节重新定义为"co-creator engagement"，并将其作为首个基础性步骤，而非最后一项可选环节。本次综述纳入的43项评估研究中，79%为同行评议文献，21%为灰色文献。这些评估研究共涉及33所康复学院，分布于英国（58%）、澳大利亚（15%）、加拿大（9%）、爱尔兰（9%）、美国（6%）及意大利（3%）。研究结果显示，康复学院评估领域尚处于发展阶段，当前正探索多元化的评估路径。然而，实际采用共创模式的评估研究寥寥无几。尽管多数研究提及了协同设计/协同生产的理念，但鲜有研究阐明拥有亲身经历的群体在评估过程中的参与程度与参与实质意义。