Editorial
| Date | 10 April 2017 |
| Pages | 65-72 |
| Published date | 10 April 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/MHSI-02-2017-0005 |
| Author | Rachel Perkins,Julie Repper |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Mental health,Social inclusion |
Rachel Perkins and Julie Repper
When is a “recovery college”not a “recovery college”?
It is rare that an idea has been taken up so widely, or so quickly, in the mental health arena as that of
a“recovery college”. The first UK recovery college was established in 2010 in South West London
based on a pilot study conducted in 2009. Now there are well over 40 recovery colleges across the
UK and elsewhere in the world: from Australia to Japan and Singapore. They have proved hugely
popular among those who use them: indeed many colleges struggle to keep up with demand.
The idea of “recovery education”predated these initiatives. In the UK, the Expert Patient
Programmes have existed for some 15 years. These adopt an educational paradigm for helping
people to manage long-term health conditions –including mental health challenges (Department
of Health, 2001, 2006). While people with lived experience are involved in co-facilitating
these programmes, the content is largely prescribed by professionals. They are aimed only at
those with long-term health conditions and they focus on symptom management rather than the
broader issues of rebuilding a life.
In the USA,the Boston Centre forPsychiatric Rehabilitation offersa recovery education programme
that grew out of rehabilitation skills training approaches: “an adult education program that offers
students the opportunity to choose a range of wellness courses that support their rehabilitation and
recovery efforts”[1]. In the Recovery Education Centre in Phoenix, Arizona, “trainedpeer facilitators
helpindividualsdevelopskillsandtoolsthatcanleadtosuccessinallaspectsofwellnessanddaily
living”[2]. However, both of these are quite different from the recovery colleges developed in the UK.
For example,they are deliberately separate from clinical services and are notdesigned to address
clinical issues of diagnosis and treatment. They offerrecovery focussed education but do notbring
together the expertise of lived experience and professional expertise in a process of co-production
and co-learning (professionals, people with mentalhealth challenges, those who are close to them
learning together). They are based on a didactic model of learning rather than a more democratic
learning environment in which the expertise of all is valued and shared. They offer a discreet numbe r
of courses that are mainly manualised and run over a number of weeks rather than a wide range of
courses varying from an hour long to full accredited courses.
Recovery colleges, while learning from these recovery education initiatives, represent a departure in
terms of models and approach. They are intended to offer a comprehensive range of courses based
on the wishes and needs of those who use them and form a core part of mental services. They involve
a shift from a focus on therapy to education and explicitly bring together the expertise of lived
experience and professional expertise in an inclusive learning environment in which people can
explore their possibilities. Based on the theory and values that lay behind the development of the first
UK recovery colleges in South West London[3], Nottingham[4] and Central and North West London[5]
a briefing paper outlining a series of eight key principles of a recovery college was produced by ImROC
in 2012 (Perkins et al., 2012). The aim was not to prescribe what people should do, but rather to offer
a framework for creativity.
It is undoubtedly the case that such creativity has occurred, some of which has been
documented in the pages of Mental Health and Social Inclusion (see McCaig et al., 2014;
Meddings et al., 2014, 2015; Frayn et al., 2016; Dunn et al., 2016; Perkins et al., 2017). In the
light of their experience, the Nottingham Recovery Co llege has developed a set of
“critical dimensions”for success of recovery colleges within the eight key principles
(McGregor et al., 2014, pp. 8-11):
■“Educational. The development and provision of recovery-focused knowledge/
understanding, coping strategies, skills and application of learning is facilitated through a
recovery-focused curriculum”.
DOI 10.1108/MHSI-02-2017-0005 VOL. 21 NO. 2 2017, pp. 65-72, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2042-8308
j
MENTALHEALTH AND SOCIAL INCLUSION
j
PAG E 65
Editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial