Recovery colleges provide personalised educational mental health support for people who self-refer. The research evidence supporting them is growing, with key components and the positive experiences of attendees reported. However, the quantitative outcome evidence and impact on economic outcomes is limited.

To evaluate the impact of attending a UK recovery college for students who receive a full educational intervention.

This is a pre- and post-intervention study, with predominantly quantitative methods. Participants recruited over an 18-month period (01.2020–07.2021) completed self-reported well-being (Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS)) and recovery (Process of Recovery (QPR)) surveys, and provided details and evidence of employment and educational status. Descriptive statistics for baseline data and Shapiro–Wilk, Wilcoxon signed-rank and paired t-tests were used to compare pre- and post-intervention scores, with Hedges’ g-statistic as a measure of effect size. Medical records were reviewed and a brief qualitative assessment of changes reported by students was conducted.

Of 101 student research participants, 84 completed the intervention. Well-being (mean SWEMWBS scores 17.3 and 21.9; n = 80) and recovery (mean QPR scores 27.2 and 38.8; n = 75) improved significantly (P < 0.001; Hedges’ g of 1.08 and 1.03). The number of economically inactive students reduced from 53 (69%) to 19 (24.4%). No research participants were referred for specialist mental health support while students. ‘Within-self’ and ‘practical’ changes were described by students following the intervention.

Findings detail the largest self-reported pre–post data-set for students attending a recovery college, and the first data detailing outcomes of remote delivery of a recovery college.

Psychological stress has an established bi-directional relationship with obesity. Mindfulness techniques reduce stress and improve eating behaviours, but their long-term impact remains untested. CALMPOD (Compassionate Approach to Living Mindfully for Prevention of Disease) is a psychoeducational mindfulness-based course evidenced to improve eating patterns across a 6-month period, possibly by reducing stress. However, no long-term evaluation of impact exists.

This study retrospectively evaluates 2-year outcomes of CALMPOD on patient engagement, weight and metabolic markers.

All adults with a body mass index >35 kg/m2 attending an UK obesity service during 2016–2020 were offered CALMPOD. Those who refused CALMPOD were offered standard lifestyle advice. Routine clinic data over 2 years, including age, gender, 6-monthly appointment attendance, weight, haemoglobin A1C and total cholesterol, were pooled and analysed to evaluate CALMPOD.

Of 289 patients, 163 participated in the CALMPOD course and 126 did not. No baseline demographic differences existed between the participating and non-participating groups. The CALMPOD group had improved attendance across all 6-monthly appointments compared with the non-CALMPOD group (P < 0.05). Mean body weight reduction at 2 years was 5.6 kg (s.d. 11.2, P < 0.001) for the CALMPOD group compared with 3.9 kg (s.d. 10.5, P < 0.001) for the non-CALMPOD group. No differences in haemoglobin A1C and fasting serum total cholesterol were identified between the groups.

The retrospective evaluation of CALMPOD suggests potential for mindfulness and compassion-based group educational techniques to improve longer-term patient and clinical outcomes. Prospective large-scale studies are needed to evaluate the impact of stress on obesity and the true impact of CALMPOD.

Digitally enabled services can contribute to the support, treatment and prevention of mental health difficulties; however, questions remain regarding how we can most usefully harness such technology in primary and secondary mental healthcare settings.

To identify barriers and facilitators to enable the potential of digital mental health in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

A three-round Delphi exercise was carried out online with 16 participants from across the four nations of the UK representing the following stakeholder groups: service providers, health professionals, policymakers, lived experience, small and medium enterprises and academics. Qualitative data were collected in the first round (80 fragments) that were then coded to produce a 26-item round-two questionnaire for participant rating. Participants were given the opportunity to reconsider their scores in light of the group responses in round three.

Eight statements under the following five themes reached consensus with median scores between 8 and 10 (i.e. important/very important): co-production; the human element; data security; funding; and regulation.

The Delphi process allowed consensus to be achieved regarding the factors that experts consider important for harnessing technology in primary and secondary mental healthcare. Knowledge of these factors can help users and providers of mental health services negotiate how best to move forward with digitally enabled systems of care.