Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41582620›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2026

Organisational variation in Recovery College implementation: 31-college qualitative study.

Simran K Takhi, Tesnime Jebara, Merly McPhilbin, Katy Stepanian, Danielle Dunnett, Jason Grant-Rowles, Yasma Osman, Gary Winship, Julie Repper, Amy Ronaldson and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2026. 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

22 authors.

Simran K TakhiSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3248-8912
Tesnime JebaraHealth Service and Population Research Department, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Merly McPhilbinSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, UK.
Katy StepanianHealth Service and Population Research Department, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Danielle DunnettHealth Service and Population Research Department, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Jason Grant-RowlesRECOLLECT Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP), King's College London, UK.
Yasma OsmanRECOLLECT Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP), King's College London, UK.
Gary WinshipSchool of Education, University of Nottingham, UK.
Julie RepperImroc Head Office, Nottingham, UK.
Amy RonaldsonHealth Service and Population Research Department, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8369-9168
Mariam NamasabaHealth Service and Population Research Department, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Yasuhiro KoteraSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, UK.
Peter BatesRECOLLECT Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP), King's College London, UK.
Simon LawrenceHealth Service and Population Research Department, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0356-631X
Agnieszka KapkaHealth Service and Population Research Department, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.
Sara MeddingsImroc Head Office, Nottingham, UK.
Jane RennisonImroc Head Office, Nottingham, UK.
Louise PatmoreWest Sussex County Council, UK.
Claire HendersonHealth Service and Population Research Department, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6998-5659
Mike SladeSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7020-3434
Simon BishopNottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, UK.
Vanessa LawrenceHealth Service and Population Research Department, https://ror.org/0220mzb33Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7852-2018

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBy 2021, we found that 88 Recovery Colleges were operating in England. Recovery Colleges adhere to shared principles including adult education and co-production, but are also heterogeneous, varying in the populations they serve, their sources of funding and access to resources. Previous research has not explored the organisational factors that influence the set-up of Recovery Colleges, nor the factors which facilitate or pose challenges to their sustainable operation.

aimsTo identify how Recovery Colleges vary in their operation and to ascertain how organisational factors facilitate or hinder the set-up, running and sustainability of English Recovery Colleges.

methodSemi-structured interviews with 31 Recovery College managers across England were analysed using framework analysis.

resultsFour themes were identified: Recovery College pioneers; Adapting to the local context; Degree of autonomy within the National Health Service; and Ongoing organisational work. Colleges were commonly established by key individuals from diverse backgrounds, leveraging their organisational positions and lived experience to facilitate implementation. Colleges were adapted to fit local contexts, shaped by factors including existing services, regional demographics and community resources. Colleges varied in their relations with key funders, with some operating comparatively autonomously and others tied closely to their 'parent' organisations. Sustaining college operations involved ongoing organisational work to respond to changing pressures.

conclusionsRecovery Colleges exhibit consistent values and aims oriented around supporting recovery through education and co-production but are diverse in their operation. These colleges are highly complex interventions, and their sustainability requires organisational agility to manage competing pressures.

Indexed as

adult educationco-productionframework analysisillness self-managementPersonal recovery

Identifiers

PMID41582620
PMCPMC12835715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.