During the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health problems increased as access to mental health services reduced. Recovery colleges are recovery-focused adult education initiatives delivered by people with professional and lived mental health expertise. Designed to be collaborative and inclusive, they were uniquely positioned to support people experiencing mental health problems during the pandemic. There is limited research exploring the lasting impacts of the pandemic on recovery college operation and delivery to students.

To ascertain how the COVID-19 pandemic changed recovery college operation in England.

We coproduced a qualitative interview study of recovery college managers across the UK. Academics and co-researchers with lived mental health experience collaborated on conducting interviews and analysing data, using a collaborative thematic framework analysis.

Thirty-one managers participated. Five themes were identified: complex organisational relationships, changed ways of working, navigating the rapid transition to digital delivery, responding to isolation and changes to accessibility. Two key pandemic-related changes to recovery college operation were highlighted: their use as accessible services that relieve pressure on mental health services through hybrid face-to-face and digital course delivery, and the development of digitally delivered courses for individuals with mental health needs.

The pandemic either led to or accelerated developments in recovery college operation, leading to a positioning of recovery colleges as a preventative service with wider accessibility to people with mental health problems, people under the care of forensic mental health services and mental healthcare staff. These benefits are strengthened by relationships with partner organisations and autonomy from statutory healthcare infrastructures.

More knowledge about positive outcomes for people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) is needed. An FEP 10-year follow-up study investigated the rate of personal recovery, emotional wellbeing, and clinical recovery in the total sample and between psychotic bipolar spectrum disorders (BD) and schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SZ); and how these positive outcomes overlap.

FEP participants (n = 128) were re-assessed with structured clinical interviews at 10-year follow-up. Personal recovery was self-rated with the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery-15-item scale (total score ⩾45). Emotional wellbeing was self-rated with the Life Satisfaction Scale (score ⩾5) and the Temporal Experience of Pleasure Scale (total score ⩾72). Clinical recovery was clinician-rated symptom-remission and adequate functioning (duration minimum 1 year).

In FEP, rates of personal recovery (50.8%), life satisfaction (60.9%), and pleasure (57.5%) were higher than clinical recovery (33.6%). Despite lower rates of clinical recovery in SZ compared to BD, they had equal rates of personal recovery and emotional wellbeing. Personal recovery overlapped more with emotional wellbeing than with clinical recovery (χ2). Each participant was assigned to one of eight possible outcome groups depending on the combination of positive outcomes fulfilled. The eight groups collapsed into three equal-sized main outcome groups: 33.6% clinical recovery with personal recovery and/or emotional wellbeing; 34.4% personal recovery and/or emotional wellbeing only; and 32.0% none.

In FEP, 68% had minimum one positive outcome after 10 years, suggesting a good life with psychosis. This knowledge must be shared to instill hope and underlines that subjective and objective positive outcomes must be assessed and targeted in treatment.

While shared clinical decision-making (SDM) is the preferred approach to decision-making in mental health care, its implementation in everyday clinical practice is still insufficient. The European Psychiatric Association undertook a study aiming to gather data on the clinical decision-making style preferences of psychiatrists working in Europe.

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving a sample of 751 psychiatrists and psychiatry specialist trainees from 38 European countries in 2021, using the Clinical Decision-Making Style – Staff questionnaire and a set of questions regarding clinicians’ expertise, training, and practice.

SDM was the preferred decision-making style across all European regions ([central and eastern Europe, CEE], northern and western Europe [NWE], and southern Europe [SE]), with an average of 73% of clinical decisions being rated as SDM. However, we found significant differences in non-SDM decision-making styles: participants working in NWE countries more often prefer shared and active decision-making styles rather than passive styles when compared to other European regions, especially to the CEE. Additionally, psychiatry specialist trainees (compared to psychiatrists), those working mainly with outpatients (compared to those working mainly with inpatients) and those working in community mental health services/public services (compared to mixed and private settings) have a significantly lower preference for passive decision-making style.

The preferences for SDM styles among European psychiatrists are generally similar. However, the identified differences in the preferences for non-SDM styles across the regions call for more dialogue and educational efforts to harmonize practice across Europe.