Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Oct;32(5):1346-1354.
doi: 10.1111/inm.13173. Epub 2023 May 26.

Recovery college dropout: A qualitative study of external, relational and course-related dropout drivers in co-produced mental health care

Ditte Andersen  1 , Anna Kristine Waldemar  2 , Sine Kirkegaard  1
Affiliations

Recovery college dropout: A qualitative study of external, relational and course-related dropout drivers in co-produced mental health care

Ditte Andersen et al. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2023 Oct.

Abstract

Recovery colleges (RCs) are rapidly spreading across Western countries, and research indicates beneficial outcomes of this co-produced model of mental health care. Meanwhile, risks of adverse outcomes and RC dropout remain understudied. To address this research gap, we conducted qualitative interviews with 14 participants who dropped out of RC courses in Denmark. This article, adhering to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ), presents a typology of the main dropout drivers identified in our sample: external, relational and course-related. External drivers involve practical obstacles, for example some participants feared taking public transportation and lacked access to alternative means of travelling to the courses. Relational drivers entail distressing interactions with educators or peer students, for example some participants felt stigmatized or intimidated. Course-related drivers concern the content of the courses, for example some students considered the academic level too basic as their design did not take prior learning into account, while others experienced a sense of alienation because they were unable or unwilling to share the kind of personal experiences course assignments envisaged. In the discussion of our findings, we consider how different types of drivers call for different modes of responses. We discuss dilemmas related to the proposed responses for reducing or accepting RC dropout.

Keywords: co-production; dropout; mental health; qualitative research; recovery college.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Bester, K.L., McGlade, A. & Darragh, E. (2021) Is co-production working well in recovery colleges? Emergent themes from a systematic narrative review. The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice, 17(1), 1755-6228.
    1. Block, E. S. & Erskine, L. (2012) Interviewing by telephone: Specific considerations, opportunities, and challenges. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(4), 428-445.
    1. Bourne, P., Meddings, S. & Whittington, A. (2018) An evaluation of service use outcomes in a recovery college. Journal of Mental Health, 27(4), 359-366.
    1. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597.
    1. Collins, R., Shakespeare, T. & Firth, L. (2018) Psychiatrists' views on recovery colleges. The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice, 13(2), 90-99.

LinkOut - more resources