We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
Aims
To ascertain how the COVID-19 pandemic changed recovery college operation in England.
Method
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
Methods
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).
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
Methods
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.
Results
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.
Conclusions
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.
Overview of needs assessment and application to forensic mental health service users; summary of key research using the CANFOR scales; consideration of broader fit with issues of risk and recovery.