Dataset Information

Who benefits from individual placement and support? A meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Individual placement and support (IPS) is an evidence-based service model to support people with mental disorders in obtaining and sustaining competitive employment. IPS is increasingly offered to a broad variety of service users. In this meta-analysis we analysed the relative effectiveness of IPS for different subgroups of service users both based on the diagnosis and defined by a range of clinical, functional and personal characteristics.

Methods

We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated IPS for service users diagnosed with any mental disorder. We examined effect sizes for the between-group differences at follow-up for three outcome measures (employment rate, job duration and wages), controlling for methodological confounders (type of control group, follow-up duration and geographic region). Using sensitivity analyses of subgroup differences, we analysed moderating effects of the following diagnostic, clinical, functional and personal characteristics: severe mental illness (SMI), common mental disorders (CMD), schizophrenia spectrum disorders, mood disorders, duration of illness, the severity of symptoms, level of functioning, age, comorbid alcohol and substance use, education level and employment history.

Results

IPS is effective in improving employment outcomes compared to the control group in all subgroups, regardless of any methodological confounder. However, IPS was relatively more effective for service users with SMIs, schizophrenia spectrum disorders and a low symptom severity. Although IPS was still effective for people with CMD and with major depressive disorder, it was relatively less effective for these subgroups. IPS was equally effective after both a short and a long follow-up period. However, we found small, but clinically not meaningful, differences in effectiveness of IPS between active and passive control groups. Finally, IPS was relatively less effective in European studies compared to non-European studies, which could be explained by a potential benefits trap in high welfare countries.

Conclusions

IPS is effective for all different subgroups, regardless of diagnostic, clinical, functional and personal characteristics. However, there might be a risk of false-positive subgroup outcomes and results should be handled with caution. Future research should focus on whether, and if so, how the IPS model should be adapted to better meet the vocational needs of people with CMD and higher symptom severity.

SUBMITTER: de Winter L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9281491 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: To examine the feasibility of conducting a fully powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Individual Placement and Support (IPS). IPS is a form of supported employment which aims to put people into open employment quickly and in accordance with their preferences. It is delivered by employment specialists collocated within clinical teams, and provides time unlimited support for the individual and their employer, along with welfare benefits counselling. Method: A feasibility cluster RCT of treatment as usual (TAU) plus IPS versus TAU alone was conducted over 12 months among patients with offending histories in a community forensic setting in the UK. The feasibility criteria were to achieve 50% recruitment rate; 50% completion rate for IPS; 50% completion rate of all outcome measures; and 80% acceptability rating for IPS. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of people in open employment at 12 months. The secondary outcomes were other vocational and educational activities; Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale; Client Service Receipt Inventory; quality of life using the SF12-v2 and EQ5-D3; Social Functioning Questionnaire; Work Limitation Questionnaire; and reoffending. Results: Participants' mean age was 39.2 years. The majority were male (88.9), White British (72.2), and single (72.2%). Over 72% had no higher qualification beyond secondary education; mean years in education was 10.4. Over one third had schizophrenia, one fifth had depression, and the rest had personality disorder as their primary diagnosis. Participants had a lifetime average of 7.5 convictions for 15.5 offences. The recruitment rate of all referrals was 38.3% (IPS n = 11; TAU n = 7). Completion rate for IPS was 54.5, with 45.5% acceptability rating. Completion rates for outcome measures for the groups at baseline and 12 months ranged from 22.2 to 100%. The proportion of people in open employment at 12 months were 9.1 and 0% for IPS and TAU respectively. Conclusion: It is not feasible to conduct a full RCT of IPS in community forensic settings in the UK owing to recruitment and retention difficulties. Conducting a trial of this kind requires a large pool of patients from multiple sites and longer IPS implementation and recruitment periods than those of this study. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02442193.

Project description:BackgroundIndividual Placement and Support (IPS) is an evidence-based work rehabilitation program helping people with moderate to severe mental illness to obtain ordinary employment. Although IPS has proven superior to other work rehabilitation programs, in many studies, the majority of the participants remain unemployed. Structured process evaluations of IPS that use mixed methods are scarce, although they could identify implementation aspects that may enhance its effect. The aim of the current study is to assess reach, fidelity, and identify barriers and facilitators to implement IPS.MethodsThe process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial including six IPS centers, comparing IPS with treatment as usual in a population of patients in treatment for moderate to severe mental illness. Mixed methods were used in the process evaluation, including focus group interviews with service providers, individual interviews and survey data from participants, and fidelity reviews using the validated IPS Fidelity Scale.ResultsThe intervention reached the intended target group. All centers reached fair to good fidelity according to the IPS Fidelity Scale within the project period (range 97-109, SD 8.1) (see Table 5). Certain fidelity items indicated implementation issues related to employer contact, community-based services, and integration with health services. Survey data showed that less than half of the participants regarded their illness as a barrier for participating in IPS and that freedom of disclosure was important. Participant interviews gave further insight into the role of the IPS specialist, emphasizing their availability and consistent job focus.ConclusionsIndications of implementation challenges across centers during the first year suggest special attention should be given to these aspects in an early phase to ensure higher fidelity from the start and thus enhance the effectiveness of IPS. The IPS specialist played an important role for participants and was described as positive, pushing in a positive way, and encouraging. More knowledge on the characteristics of successful IPS specialists could further enhance the effectiveness of the intervention.Trial registrationThe study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov prior to the inclusion period (reg.no: NCT01964092, registered 17/07/2013).Supplementary informationSupplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s43058-020-00083-9.

Project description:BackgroundIt is not clear whether the routine placement of a pelvic drain after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a necessity. The aim of this study was to investigate this through a meta-analysis of RCTs and non-randomized studies.MethodsA search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science, up to 9 March 2023, for clinical trials comparing no drain with pelvic drain placement for patients with prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. A random-effect model was assumed for all analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and, for non-randomized studies, the ROBINS-I tool was used (where ROBINS-I stands for Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions). This meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023406429).ResultsA total of six studies with 1480 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both the meta-analysis of RCTs and the meta-analysis of non-randomized studies showed that patients without drains had a similar estimated blood loss (mean difference 40.49 ml, 95% c.i. -59.75 to 140.74 ml, P = 0.430, and mean difference -14.20 ml, 95% c.i. -32.26 to 3.87 ml, P = 0.120 respectively), overall complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.35 to 1.04, P = 0.070, and OR 0.90, 95% c.i. 0.59 to 1.39, P = 0.640 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complication rate (OR 0.62, 95% c.i. 0.34 to 1.13, P = 0.120, and OR 0.83, 95% c.i. 0.28 to 2.51, P = 0.750 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade III-V complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.10 to 3.69, P = 0.590, and OR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.25 to 3.39, P = 0.900 respectively), and duration of hospital stay (mean difference -0.08 days, 95% c.i. -0.45 to 0.29 days, P = 0.670, and mean difference -0.64 days, 95% c.i. -2.67 to 1.39 days, P = 0.540 respectively) compared with routinely drained patients. Meta-analysis of non-randomized studies revealed that the duration of operation for patients without drains was shorter than that for patients with drains (mean difference -34.88 min, 95% c.i. -43.58 to -26.18 min, P < 0.001), but the meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference -7.64 min, 95% c.i. -15.61 to 0.32 min, P = 0.060).ConclusionThe intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of patients without drains were not inferior to those of patients with drains. In selected patients, pelvic drains can be omitted after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.