ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Social frames promoting sharing in Norwegian Recovery Colleges: an ethnographic study.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Recovery Colleges (RCs) for people with substance use and mental health challenges represent an innovation in mental health services, emphasising co-creation and adult learning. Students and course facilitators with diverse experiences engage in collaborative learning in these settings by sharing experiences, knowledge, and skills. This paper examines the social frameworks that facilitate or hinder sharing within RCs. Methods: We conducted an ethnographic study in two distinct RC settings, using participatory observation and semi-structured interviews with facilitators, students, and leaders. We employed Goffman's frame analysis to understand the social framework in RC and how its organisational structures and physical premises influence sharing among students and facilitators. Results: Our results reveal layers of social frameworks that emphasise learning, recovery, strengths, equality, and open discussions about mental health. Organisational structures and physical premises significantly support or hinder these social frameworks. Clear communication, preparatory conversations, respect for boundaries, and neutral settings were identified as key aspects promoting sharing. Conversely, focus on diagnoses, top-down attitudes, inadequate preparations, excessive facilitator involvement, health-related settings, and overly exposed arrangements could inhibit sharing. Discussion: The organic interactions within RC courses create complexities in understanding the promoters and inhibitors of sharing within these social frameworks. What promotes sharing in one setting can inhibit sharing in another. We illustrated situations where disruptions to the frames either promoted active participation for some or inhibited sharing for those who felt overwhelmed. Recognising this complexity is crucial for facilitators in RCs to effectively frame sharing and achieve mutual learning among students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.