MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297148162 · doi:10.1186/s12888-022-04253-y

Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing in England (RECOLLECT): rationale and protocol

2022· article· en· W4297148162 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Hayes, Claire Henderson, Ioannis Bakolis, Vanessa Lawrence, Rachel Elliott, Amy Ronaldson, Gabrielle Richards, Julie Repper, Peter Bates, John Brewin, Sara Meddings, Gary Winship, Simon Bishop, Richard Emsley, Daniel C. Elton, Rebecca L. McNaughton, Rob Whitley, David Smelson, Katy Stepanian, Merly McPhilbin, Danielle Dunnett, Holly Hunter-Brown, Caroline Yeo, Tesnime Jebara, Mike Slade

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersProgramme Development GrantsNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchProgramme Grants for Applied ResearchKing's College LondonKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration South LondonNIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research CentreSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsMental healthFidelityPsychosocialPsychologyCohortEmpirical researchMedical educationMedicineNursingApplied psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recovery Colleges are a relatively recent initiative within mental health services. The first opened in 2009 in London and since then numbers have grown. They are based on principles of personal recovery in mental health, co-production between people with lived experience of mental health problems and professionals, and adult learning. Student eligibility criteria vary, but all serve people who use mental health services, with empirical evidence of benefit. Previously we developed a Recovery College fidelity measure and a preliminary change model identifying the mechanisms of action and outcomes for this group, which we refer to as service user students. The Recovery Colleges Characterisation and Testing (RECOLLECT) study is a five-year (2020-2025) programme of research in England. The aim of RECOLLECT is to determine Recovery Colleges' effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and identify organisational influences on fidelity and improvements in mental health outcomes. METHODS: RECOLLECT comprises i) a national survey of Recovery Colleges, ii) a prospective cohort study to establish the relationship between fidelity, mechanisms of action and psychosocial outcomes, iii) a prospective cohort study to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, iv) a retrospective cohort study to determine the relationship between Recovery College use and outcomes and mental health service use, and v) organisational case studies to establish the contextual and organisational factors influencing fidelity and outcomes. The programme has been developed with input from individuals who have lived experience of mental health problems. A Lived Experience Advisory Panel will provide input into all stages of the research. DISCUSSION: RECOLLECT will provide the first rigorous evidence on the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Recovery Colleges in England, to inform their prioritising, commissioning, and running. The validated RECOLLECT multilevel change model will confirm the active components of Recovery Colleges. The fidelity measure and evidence about the fidelity-outcome relationship will provide an empirically-based approach to develop Recovery Colleges, to maximise benefits for students. Findings will be disseminated through the study website (researchintorecovery.com/recollect) and via national and international Recovery College networks to maximise impact, and will shape policy on how Recovery Colleges can help those with mental health problems lead empowered, meaningful and fulfilling lives.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.085
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0850.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.018

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PsychiatrySame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207