Lisa J Evans1, Gary R Bond. 1. Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, School of Public Health, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA. levans2@lsuhsc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Supported employment is identified as an evidence-based practice for people with severe mental illness, with Individual Placement and Support (IPS) emerging as the clearest articulation of this practice. Yet throughout the U.S., programs labeled as supported employment operate in a wide variety of ways, with different staffing patterns, organizational features, and services. Consensus on critical ingredients is crucial for establishing standards for evidence-based services, guiding implementation of new programs, and fostering communication in the literature. The current study examined the degree of agreement on the critical ingredients of supported employment among experts and practitioners. METHODS: The expert sample (n=19) consisted primarily of university-based researchers, while the practitioner sample (n=55) was a convenience sample generated from lists provided by state leaders in 2 Western, 2 Central, and 2 Eastern states. Using multiple sources, including published guidelines and 3 supported employment fidelity scales, we developed a 59-item survey checklist. Respondents rated items on a 7-point importance scale and indicated ideal specifications in 11 areas. FINDINGS: We found strong agreement on the critical ingredients of supported employment within the expert and practitioner groups. On most items, the two groups had similar mean ratings of importance. Experts rated 4 items reflecting evidence-based principles and 2 items related to outcome monitoring as more important than did practitioners, while practitioners rated as more important 10 items reflecting pragmatic concerns (e.g., funding, accreditation). Comparing survey responses on the 15 items from the IPS Fidelity Scale suggested general endorsement of IPS principles, except in the area of staffing. Ideal model specifications included caseload size of 16 and twice weekly supervision. Respondents also suggested critical ingredients not measured by the IPS Fidelity Scale, such as benefits counseling, supported education, a cultivation of employers. CONCLUSIONS: This survey shows a growing consensus within the psychiatric rehabilitation field on IPS principles while suggesting additional strategies endorsed by experts and practitioners.
BACKGROUND: Supported employment is identified as an evidence-based practice for people with severe mental illness, with Individual Placement and Support (IPS) emerging as the clearest articulation of this practice. Yet throughout the U.S., programs labeled as supported employment operate in a wide variety of ways, with different staffing patterns, organizational features, and services. Consensus on critical ingredients is crucial for establishing standards for evidence-based services, guiding implementation of new programs, and fostering communication in the literature. The current study examined the degree of agreement on the critical ingredients of supported employment among experts and practitioners. METHODS: The expert sample (n=19) consisted primarily of university-based researchers, while the practitioner sample (n=55) was a convenience sample generated from lists provided by state leaders in 2 Western, 2 Central, and 2 Eastern states. Using multiple sources, including published guidelines and 3 supported employment fidelity scales, we developed a 59-item survey checklist. Respondents rated items on a 7-point importance scale and indicated ideal specifications in 11 areas. FINDINGS: We found strong agreement on the critical ingredients of supported employment within the expert and practitioner groups. On most items, the two groups had similar mean ratings of importance. Experts rated 4 items reflecting evidence-based principles and 2 items related to outcome monitoring as more important than did practitioners, while practitioners rated as more important 10 items reflecting pragmatic concerns (e.g., funding, accreditation). Comparing survey responses on the 15 items from the IPS Fidelity Scale suggested general endorsement of IPS principles, except in the area of staffing. Ideal model specifications included caseload size of 16 and twice weekly supervision. Respondents also suggested critical ingredients not measured by the IPS Fidelity Scale, such as benefits counseling, supported education, a cultivation of employers. CONCLUSIONS: This survey shows a growing consensus within the psychiatric rehabilitation field on IPS principles while suggesting additional strategies endorsed by experts and practitioners.