Outcome indicators used in recovery college effectiveness studies: a scoping review
- 1Faculty of Social Welfare, University of Kochi
Abstract
Introduction: Recovery Colleges (RCs) are educational, recovery-oriented approaches in mental health. Differences in evaluation purposes and settings may lead to diverse outcome indicators, making it important to map their use and supporting measurement evidence. This scoping review aimed to identify the outcome indicators used in RC evaluations and clarify their measured constructs, patterns of use, and reporting of reliability and validity. Methods: The review followed JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL Ultimate, ERIC, and seven databases accessed through ProQuest were searched. English-language journal articles reporting quantitative RC evaluations, including quantitative components of mixed-methods studies, were eligible. Eligible data included questionnaire scores before and after RC participation and health service utilization indicators, such as hospital admissions and service contacts. Three reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts. Data were extracted collaboratively by two reviewers and independently checked by a third. Measured constructs were classified using inductive content analysis. Results: Of 336 records identified, 149 remained after deduplication and 22 articles were included. Thirty-nine measure and indicator entries were identified across three domains: intra-personal and psychological changes, behavioral and social changes, and system and environment. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS), including its short version (SWEMWBS), appeared in 11 articles (50.0%) and the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR) in four (18.2%); 28 entries appeared in one article only. Fifteen articles (68.2%) cited previous psychometric information or identifiable validation literature, two (9.1%) explicitly reported within-study reliability estimates, and six (27.3%) reported neither specific psychometric evidence nor an identifiable validation citation. One article was not applicable to scale psychometrics. Conclusion: RC evaluations used diverse measures, while direct assessment of educational processes and outcomes was comparatively limited. This review mapped measurement choices rather than RC effects. The findings can inform co-produced decisions about outcome selection and study design, alongside further evaluation of existing instruments’ suitability for the intended RC populations. Involving learners and other stakeholders in these decisions can help align evaluation with research purposes and RCs’ educational philosophy while ensuring that participants’ individual goals are also assessed.
Related
- Twelve-month outcomes and exploratory outcome indicators after iRoot BP Plus pulpotomy in primary molars: a retrospective real-world cohort study
- Trust in HPV vaccine effectiveness and safety and willingness to initiate HPV vaccination among unvaccinated female college students recruited through university-based online networks in China: a cross-sectional study
- Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on Performance Retention During Detraining and Recovery After Simulated Return-to-Training Stress in College Volleyball Players: An Exploratory Randomized, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial
- AI-contextualized self-efficacy and exercise engagement among vocational college students in China: a cross-sectional serial mediation analysis of exercise self-efficacy and exercise outcome expectations.
- A Pilot Study on the Association Between Early Fluid Status Indicators After Kidney Transplantation and Graft Function Recovery
BibTeX
@article{seike2026outcome,
title = {{Outcome indicators used in recovery college effectiveness studies: a scoping review}},
author = {Yosuke Seike and Aya Bakuroda and Maki Tamari},
journal = {Frontiers in Psychiatry},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1969790},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1969790/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Outcome indicators used in recovery college effectiveness studies: a scoping review
AU - Yosuke Seike
AU - Aya Bakuroda
AU - Maki Tamari
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/22
JO - Frontiers in Psychiatry
DO - 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1969790
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1969790/full
AB - Introduction: Recovery Colleges (RCs) are educational, recovery-oriented approaches in mental health. Differences in evaluation purposes and settings may lead to diverse outcome indicators, making it important to map their use and supporting measurement evidence. This scoping review aimed to identify the outcome indicators used in RC evaluations and clarify their measured constructs, patterns of use, and reporting of reliability and validity. Methods: The review followed JBI methodology and PRISMA-ScR reporting guidance. PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL Ultimate, ERIC, and seven databases accessed through ProQuest were searched. English-language journal articles reporting quantitative RC evaluations, including quantitative components of mixed-methods studies, were eligible. Eligible data included questionnaire scores before and after RC participation and health service utilization indicators, such as hospital admissions and service contacts. Three reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts. Data were extracted collaboratively by two reviewers and independently checked by a third. Measured constructs were classified using inductive content analysis. Results: Of 336 records identified, 149 remained after deduplication and 22 articles were included. Thirty-nine measure and indicator entries were identified across three domains: intra-personal and psychological changes, behavioral and social changes, and system and environment. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS), including its short version (SWEMWBS), appeared in 11 articles (50.0%) and the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR) in four (18.2%); 28 entries appeared in one article only. Fifteen articles (68.2%) cited previous psychometric information or identifiable validation literature, two (9.1%) explicitly reported within-study reliability estimates, and six (27.3%) reported neither specific psychometric evidence nor an identifiable validation citation. One article was not applicable to scale psychometrics. Conclusion: RC evaluations used diverse measures, while direct assessment of educational processes and outcomes was comparatively limited. This review mapped measurement choices rather than RC effects. The findings can inform co-produced decisions about outcome selection and study design, alongside further evaluation of existing instruments’ suitability for the intended RC populations. Involving learners and other stakeholders in these decisions can help align evaluation with research purposes and RCs’ educational philosophy while ensuring that participants’ individual goals are also assessed.
SN - 1664-0640
ER -