Dataset Information

Experiences with the implementation of Individual Placement and Support for people with severe mental illness: a qualitative study among stakeholders.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an evidence-based approach to help people with severe mental illness achieve competitive employment. This article provides insight into an organizational and a financial implementation strategy for IPS in the Netherlands by exploring the perceived facilitators and barriers among participating stakeholders. The goal of this multifaceted strategy was to improve IPS implementation by improving the collaboration between all organizations involved, and realising secured IPS funding with a 'pay for performance' element. METHODS:A qualitative, explorative study among practitioners (n?=?8) and decision makers (n?=?7) in mental health care and vocational rehabilitation was performed using semi-structured interviews to collect rich information about the possible facilitators and barriers with regard to the organizational and financial implementation strategy for IPS. RESULTS:Important perceived facilitators were the key principles of the IPS model, regular meetings of stakeholders in mental health care and vocational rehabilitation, stakeholders' experienced ownership of IPS and collaboration, the mandate and influence of the decision makers involved and secured IPS funding. Important perceived barriers included the experienced rigidity of the IPS model fidelity scale and lack of independent fidelity reviewers, the temporary and fragmented character of the secured funding, lack of communication between decision makers and practitioners and negative attitudes and beliefs among mental health clinicians. Changes in legislation were experienced as a facilitator as well as a barrier. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study suggest that the collaboration and IPS funding were experienced as improved by applying an organizational and a financial implementation strategy. However, considerable effort is still necessary to overcome the remaining barriers identified and to make the implementation of IPS a success in practice.

SUBMITTER: Vukadin M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5968490 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Experiences with the implementation of Individual Placement and Support for people with severe mental illness: a qualitative study among stakeholders.

Vukadin Miljana M Schaafsma Frederieke G FG Westerman Marjan J MJ Michon Harry W C HWC Anema Johannes R JR

BMC psychiatry 20180524 1

<h4>Background</h4>Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an evidence-based approach to help people with severe mental illness achieve competitive employment. This article provides insight into an organizational and a financial implementation strategy for IPS in the Netherlands by exploring the perceived facilitators and barriers among participating stakeholders. The goal of this multifaceted strategy was to improve IPS implementation by improving the collaboration between all organizations i ...[more]

PMID: 29793455

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSocial inclusion is a human right for all people, including people with mental illness. It is also an important part of recovery from mental illness. In Timor-Leste, no research has investigated the social experiences of people with mental illness and their families. To fill this knowledge gap and inform ongoing mental health system strengthening, we investigated the experiences of social inclusion and exclusion of people with mental illness and their families in Timor-Leste.MethodsEighty-five participants from the following stakeholder groups across multiple locations in Timor-Leste were interviewed: (1) people with mental illness and their families; (2) mental health and social service providers; (3) government decision makers; (4) civil society members; and (5) other community members. Framework analysis was used to analyse interview transcripts.ResultsPeople with mental illness in Timor-Leste were found to face widespread, multi-faceted sociocultural, economic and political exclusion. People with mental illness were stigmatised as a consequence of beliefs that they were dangerous and lacked capacity, and experienced instances of bullying, physical and sexual violence, and confinement. Several barriers to formal employment, educational, social protection and legal systems were identified. Experiences of social inclusion for people with mental illness were also described at family and community levels. People with mental illness were included through family and community structures that promoted unity and acceptance. They also had opportunities to participate in activities surrounding family life and livelihoods that contributed to intergenerational well-being. Some, but not all, Timorese people with mental illness benefited from disability-inclusive programming and policies, including the disability pension, training programs and peer support.ConclusionsThese findings highlight the need to combat social exclusion of people with mental illness and their families by harnessing local Timorese sociocultural strengths. Such an approach could centre around people with mental illness and their families to: increase population mental health awareness; bolster rights-based and culturally-grounded mental health services; and promote inclusive and accessible services and systems across sectors.

Project description:ImportanceIndividual placement and support (IPS) seems to be an effective vocational intervention for people with severe mental illness, but its effects have not yet been shown in the Danish welfare model. Also, effects may be enhanced by adding cognitive remediation and work-focused social skills training (IPS with enhancements [IPSE]).ObjectivesTo investigate the effects of IPS vs IPSE vs service as usual (SAU) on a population of individuals with severe mental illness in Denmark.Design, setting, and participantsThis was an investigator-initiated, 3-group, parallel, assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial that used early-intervention teams or community mental health services in 3 Danish cities to recruit participants with severe mental illness. Participants were randomly assigned to receive IPS, IPSE, or SAU from November 2012 to February 2016, and follow-up continued until August 2017.InterventionsParticipants allocated to the IPS intervention received vocational support per the principles of the IPS model. Participants in the IPSE arm received cognitive remediation and social skills training in addition to IPS. The group receiving SAU received vocational rehabilitation at the Danish job centers.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the number of hours in competitive employment or education during the 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included intergroup differences in employment or education at any point during follow-up; time to employment or education; and cognitive and social functioning, self-esteem, and self-efficacy.ResultsOf the 720 included participants (mean [SD] age, 32.8 [9.9] years; 276 [38.3%] women), 243 received IPS, 238 received IPSE, and 239 received SAU. Most participants (551 [76.5%]) were diagnosed with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder. During the 18-month follow-up, the IPSE group worked or studied a mean (SD) of 488.1 (735.6) hours, compared with 340.8 (573.8) hours in the group receiving SAU (success-rate difference [SRD], 0.151 [95% CI, 0.01-0.295]; P = .016). The mean (SD) in the IPS group was 411 (656.9) (SRD, 0.127 [95% CI, -0.017 to 0.276]; P = .004). There was no difference between IPS and IPSE in any vocational outcomes, and the 3 groups showed no differences in any nonvocational outcomes, except that the IPS and IPSE groups were more satisfied with the services received than the group receiving SAU (IPS vs SAU: SRD, 0.310 [95% CI, 0.167-0.445]); IPSE vs SAU: SRD, 0.341 [95% CI, 0.187-0.478]).Conclusions and relevanceCompared with SAU, IPS and IPSE seem to be viable routes to increase employment and education rates in people with severe mental illness in Denmark, but no additional effects were observed by enhancing IPS.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01722344.

Project description:IntroductionPeople experiencing severe mental illness (SMI) smoke at much higher rates than the general population and require additional support. Engagement with existing evidence-based interventions such as quitlines and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) may be improved by mental health peer worker involvement and tailored support. This paper reports on a qualitative study nested within a peer researcher-facilitated tobacco treatment trial that included brief advice plus, for those in the intervention group, tailored quitline callback counseling and combination NRT. It contextualizes participant life experience and reflection on trial participation and offers insights for future interventions.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 participants in a randomized controlled trial (intervention group n = 15, control group n = 14) following their 2-month (post-recruitment) follow-up assessments, which marked the end of the "Quitlink" intervention for those in the intervention group. Interviews explored the experience of getting help to address smoking (before and during the trial), perceptions of main trial components including assistance from peer researchers and tailored quitline counseling, the role of NRT, and other support received. A general inductive approach to analysis was applied.ResultsWe identified four main themes: (1) the long and complex journey of quitting smoking in the context of disrupted lives; (2) factors affecting quitting (desire to quit, psychological and social barriers, and facilitators and reasons for quitting); (3) the perceived benefits of a tailored approach for people with mental ill-health including the invitation to quit and practical resources; and (4) the importance of compassionate delivery of support, beginning with the peer researchers and extended by quitline counselors for intervention participants. Subthemes were identified within each of these overarching main themes.DiscussionThe findings underscore the enormity of the challenges that our targeted population face and the considerations needed for providing tobacco treatment to people who experience SMI. The data suggest that a tailored tobacco treatment intervention has the potential to assist people on a journey to quitting, and that compassionate support encapsulating a recovery-oriented approach is highly valued.Clinical trial registrationThe Quitlink trial was registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN12619000244101 prior to the accrual of the first participant and updated regularly as per registry guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundPeer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status.Selection criteriaWe selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse).Data collection and analysisThe authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes.Authors' conclusionsCurrently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Dataset Information

Experiences with the implementation of Individual Placement and Support for people with severe mental illness: a qualitative study among stakeholders.

Publications

Experiences with the implementation of Individual Placement and Support for people with severe mental illness: a qualitative study among stakeholders.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets