The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201900352

Objective:

Since the first recovery college (RC) opened in England in 2009, many more have begun operating around the world. The body of knowledge regarding the effects of RCs is growing, suggesting their benefit to recovery, well-being, goal achievement, knowledge, self-management, social support, reduced stigma, and service use. The objective of this review was to establish the state of knowledge about RCs from current empirical literature and to document the methods used to evaluate them.

Methods:

In consultation with an international expert panel, two independent evaluators performed a literature review with no date limits on publications in the Medline and Scopus electronic databases.

Results:

A total of 460 articles were found, and 31 publications were retained. RC attendance was associated with high satisfaction among students, attainment of recovery goals, changes in service providers’ practice, and reductions in service use and cost.

Conclusions:

To our knowledge, this is the first literature review of peer-reviewed publications about original studies evaluating the impacts of RCs, including studies pertaining to students, health service providers’ practices, education and management practitioners, and citizens. Quantitative studies with a high level of evidence were underrepresented and should be considered as a future evaluation design. Furthermore, outcomes such as empowerment and reduced stigma should be assessed with standardized tools. The impact of RCs on attendees, family, friends, and caregivers and on the everyday practice of health service providers who attend RCs for continuing education or as tutors should also be assessed.