ArticleCommunity mental health journal2026
Recovery Colleges or Something Different? The Development and Evaluation of a Reflection Tool for Recovery Colleges in the Netherlands.
Article in Community mental health journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of Recovery Colleges: A Nonrandomised Clinical Trial Across Two Years Using Propensity Score Matching: Efficacité des collèges de rétablissement: essai clinique non randomisé sur deux ans utilisant l'appariement par score de propension.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2026Observational
- Understanding Recovery Colleges Through Partaker Narratives: Qualitative Diary-Interview Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Navigating in a value-driven practice: a study of a Dutch Recovery College as a learning, social, and organizational space.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recovery Colleges (RCs) are increasingly implemented worldwide, with a fidelity measure recently developed in the United Kingdom (UK). However, RCs may vary based on their operating contexts. In the Netherlands, a key deviation is that RCs are often peer-run rather than co-produced with mental healthcare providers, as outlined in the fidelity measure. This study assessed the measure's suitability in the Dutch context, leading to the development of a reflection tool (Phase 1) which was subsequently evaluated (Phase 2). The development phase involved focus groups with peer facilitators and coordinators from 16 RCs (N = 29) to capture critical elements of Dutch RCs. The tool was piloted (N = 5) and evaluated more broadly (N = 24). The tool provided valuable insights, highlighting shared values among RCs internationally and conceptual differences between Dutch and UK models. The findings raised questions about the boundaries of fidelity in co-created contexts such as RCs.
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.