Organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, funding models, and unit costs of recovery colleges in 28 countries: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Recovery colleges were developed in England to support the recovery of individuals who have mental health symptoms or mental illness. They have been founded in many countries but there has been little international research on recovery colleges and no studies investigating their staffing, fidelity, or costs. We aimed to characterise recovery colleges internationally, to understand organisational and student characteristics, fidelity, and budget. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified all countries in which recovery colleges exist. We repeated a cross-sectional survey done in England for recovery colleges in 28 countries. In both surveys, recovery colleges were defined as services that supported personal recovery, that were coproduced with students and staff, and where students learned collaboratively with trainers. Recovery college managers completed the survey. The survey included questions about organisational and student characteristics, fidelity to the RECOLLECT Fidelity Measure, funding models, and unit costs. Recovery colleges were grouped by country and continent and presented descriptively. We used regression models to explore continental differences in fidelity, using England as the reference group. FINDINGS: We identified 221 recovery colleges operating across 28 countries, in five continents. Overall, 174 (79%) of 221 recovery colleges participated. Most recovery colleges scored highly on fidelity. Overall scores for fidelity (ß=-2·88, 95% CI 4·44 to -1·32; p=0·0001), coproduction (odds ratio [OR] 0·10, 95% CI 0·03 to 0·33; p<0·0001), and being tailored to the student (OR 0·10, 0·02 to 0·39; p=0·0010), were lower for recovery colleges in Asia than in England. No other significant differences were identified between recovery colleges in England, and those in other continents where recovery colleges were present. 133 recovery colleges provided data on annual budgets, which ranged from €0 to €2 550 000, varying extensively within and between continents. From included data, all annual budgets reported by the college added up to €30 million, providing 19 864 courses for 55 161 students. INTERPRETATION: Recovery colleges exist in many countries. There is an international consensus on key operating principles, especially equality and a commitment to recovery, and most recovery colleges achieve moderate to high fidelity to the original model, irrespective of the income band of their country. Cultural differences need to be considered in assessing coproduction and approaches to individualising support. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Similarities and differences between service users' and carers' experiences of crisis resolution teams in Norway: a survey.

BACKGROUND: Crisis resolution team (CRT) care in adult mental health services is intended to provide accessible and flexible short-term, intensive crisis intervention to service users experiencing a mental health crisis and involve their carers (next of kin). Research on users' and especially carers' experiences with CRT care is scarce and is mostly qualitative in nature. METHODS: Altogether, 111 service users and 86 carers from 28 Norwegian CRTs were interviewed with The Service User and Carer Structured Interviews of the CORE Crisis Resolution Team Fidelity Scale Version 2. Their experiences with different aspects of CRT care were reported with descriptive statistics, and differences between service users' and carers' experiences were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U Test. RESULTS: The service users and carers reported that the CRT care mostly reflected their needs and what they wanted. The experiences of service users and carers were mostly similar, except for significant differences in received information and how the termination of CRT care appeared. Both groups experienced the organization of the CRT care as accessible, with continuity, reliability, and flexibility, but without a high intensity of care. Both groups found the content of the CRT care supportive, sensitive, with a choice of treatment type and a range of interventions beyond medication, but a lack of written treatment plans and discharge plans. Carers were rarely involved in discharge meetings. Regarding the role of CRTs within the care system, both groups agreed upon the lack of facilitation of early discharge from inpatient wards and lack of home treatment, but both groups confirmed some collaboration with other mental health services. CONCLUSION: Service users and carers found that the CRTs were accessible, reliable, flexible, supportive, sensitive, and provided a range of interventions beyond medication. Limitations were lack of a high intensity of care, limited written treatment and discharge plans, limited provision of home treatment, and lack of gatekeeping of acute beds. Both groups experienced the CRT care as mostly similar, but with significant differences regarding involvement in care planning and discharge preparation.