Outcome indicators used in recovery college effectiveness studies: a scoping review
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 7, 2026
Integrating Computerized Linguistic and Social Network Analyses to Capture Addiction Recovery Capital in an Online Community
Published on: May 31, 2019
Yosuke Seike1, Aya Bakuroda1, Maki Tamari1
1Faculty of Social Welfare, University of Kochi, Kochi, Japan.
Abstract:
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 Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care evaluation by...