Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41026706›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Enhancing cross-cultural applicability in recovery colleges: A global Delphi study protocol.

Yasuhiro Kotera, Tesnime Jebara, Vanessa Lawrence, Simran Takhi, Amy Ronaldson, Simon Lawrence, Vanessa Kellermann, Agnieszka Kapka, Peter Bates, Claire Henderson and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Yasuhiro KoteraSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0251-0085
Tesnime JebaraHealth Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.
Vanessa LawrenceHealth Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7852-2018
Simran TakhiSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Amy RonaldsonHealth Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.
Simon LawrenceHealth Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.
Vanessa KellermannHealth Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.
Agnieszka KapkaHealth Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.
Peter BatesRECOLLECT Lived Experience Advisory Panel, London, United Kingdom.
Claire HendersonHealth Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.
Mike SladeSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research (Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing (RECOLLECT) 2 NIHR200605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecovery Colleges (RCs) offer an innovative model of mental health support that blends co-production with adult learning to promote personal recovery and social inclusion. While evidence supports their effectiveness, most RC research and practice have been developed in Western contexts, raising concerns about cross-cultural applicability. The RECOLLECT Change Model (RCM) and RECOLLECT Fidelity Measure (RFM) were developed in England to characterise RC mechanisms and assess fidelity. Our previous studies have identified cultural influences on the RC operational model, however how to address these influences remains unknown. Given the increasing global interest in RCs, the aims of this study are to (a) identify the level of cultural influence on the RCM mechanisms and RFM items, and (b) provide recommendations to inform cross-cultural applicability of RCM and RFM.

methodsThis global Delphi study follows Belton's six-step methodology and uses a decentring approach to cross-cultural research that seeks to extend the relevance of tools developed in a single culture to multiple cultural contexts. Experts will be recruited via the RECOLLECT International Research Consortium, covering 31 countries across six continents. We aim to recruit approximately 100 panellists with at least three years' RC experience. Data collection will occur via Microsoft Forms across iterative Delphi rounds. Panellists will rate the importance and cultural difficulty of RCM and RFM items, provide feedback on culturally aligned response types, and suggest revisions for improved cultural fit. Quantitative data will be analysed using non-parametric statistics and a collapsed three-point Likert scale to address cross-cultural response bias. Qualitative responses will be analysed using descriptive content analysis informed by Hofstede's cultural dimension theory. Member checking will be conducted after the final round to enhance trustworthiness. DISCUSSION: This study will identify which RCM and RFM components are cross-culturally applicable and which require adjustment, contributing to the balance between fidelity and fit in mental health approaches. By developing culturally informed recommendations, this study aims to expand the accessibility and relevance of RC frameworks across diverse settings. Findings will benefit RC practitioners, researchers, and policymakers seeking to improve service delivery and recovery outcomes in culturally meaningful ways.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonDelphi TechniqueMental Health ServicesHumansMental HealthUniversities

Identifiers

PMID41026706
PMCPMC12483229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.