Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35314472›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Developing an evaluation framework for assessing the impact of recovery colleges: protocol for a participatory stakeholder engagement process and cocreated scoping review.

Elizabeth Lin, Holly Harris, Sam Gruszecki, Kenya A Costa-Dookhan, Terri Rodak, Sanjeev Sockalingam, Sophie Soklaridis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Recovery in Mind: A Recovery College's journey through the Covid-19 pandemic.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Elizabeth LinDepartment of Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Holly HarrisOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences, Whitby, Ontario, Canada.
Sam GruszeckiDepartment of Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kenya A Costa-DookhanDepartment of Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Terri RodakDepartment of Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sanjeev SockalingamDepartment of Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sophie SoklaridisDepartment of Education, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sophie.Soklaridis@camh.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-5119-8473

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRecovery colleges (RCs) are mental health centres aimed at equipping people with skills to live a meaningful life despite the presence of mental distress. Unique to them is the aspect of cocreation; RCs are designed collaboratively with people of lived experiences of mental health and addictions and care providers. Despite established benefits, there remains a lack of empirical evidence on how RCs work and on their impact.

aimsWe aim to address this gap by designing a cocreated evaluation framework for RCs. This will be accomplished by engaging RC student/facilitators to provide perspectives on RCs/RC evaluation and cocreate a scoping review identifying evaluation gaps in the literature. Themes identified through these processes will form the evaluation framework. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two methodologies will be used to explore RC evaluation: student/facilitator engagement and a scoping review of current published and grey literature on RC evaluation. Engagement will be achieved using a participatory action research approach consisting of informant interviews of ~25 RC students/facilitators across Canada, which will be thematically analysed. The scoping review will follow methodology described by Arksey and O'Malley modified to support cocreation. Concurrent conducting of the engagement process and scoping review will allow RC students and peer facilitators the opportunity to shape RC evaluations, address gaps in the literature and codesign an evaluation framework focused on recovery-oriented processes and outcomes mattering most to RCs students/facilitators. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was received for the RC student/facilitator engagement component from the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health Research Ethics Board (#042-2020) and Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences (#20-013-B). Scoping review results will be copresented through national and international medical education conferences and published in open-access peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore, a dissemination strategy on evaluation for the national RC community will be created.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersStakeholder ParticipationHumansMental HealthOntarioResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topicmedical education & trainingmental healthpsychiatry

Identifiers

PMID35314472
PMCPMC8938698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.