4.2 Article

Who Uses Recovery Colleges? Casemix Analysis of Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics and Representativeness of Recovery College Students

Journal

PSYCHIATRIC REHABILITATION JOURNAL
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 211-215

Publisher

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/prj0000532

Keywords

Recovery College; demographics; accessibility; service use; inclusivity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found significant differences in gender, age, and diagnosis between students at Recovery Colleges and mental health service users, with some colleges having more students with recent inpatient admissions or involuntary detentions. The results suggest that service user students largely represent mental health service users, but some groups are underrepresented.
Objective: Recovery Colleges support recovery for adults with mental health problems, through coproduction and education principles. This study aimed to determine whether students at three Recovery Colleges in England were representative of mental health service users. Methods: Gender, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, involuntary detention, and inpatient admission were extracted from clinical records. Data for all service user students enrolled, and those who had attended 70% of a Recovery College course were compared to mental health services caseloads, using chi-square goodness-of-fit tests. Results: Clinical records were identified for 1,788 students. Significant differences were identified for gender, age, and diagnosis (p < .001). In some Colleges, more students had recent inpatient admissions or involuntary detentions. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Service user students were largely representative of mental health service users, although some groups were underrepresented. Further research is needed to understand why, so that Recovery Colleges can continue to address inequalities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available