Scholarlink

<p>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 (<i>N =</i> 29) to capture critical elements of Dutch RCs. The tool was piloted (<i>N =</i> 5) and evaluated more broadly (<i>N =</i> 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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Recovery Colleges or Something Different? The Development and Evaluation of a Reflection Tool for Recovery Colleges in the Netherlands

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月29日

查看全文
  • Marloes van Wezel,
  • Christien Muusse,
  • Jenny Boumans,
  • Dike van de Mheen,
  • Hans Kroon

摘要

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.