Vigdis Sveinsdottir1, Helen Christine Bull2, Stig Evensen3, Silje Endresen Reme4, Thomas Knutzen5, June Ullevoldsæter Lystad6. 1. NORCE Norwegian Research Centre. 2. Department of Occupational Therapy, Prosthetics and Orthotics, OsloMet-Oslo Metropolitan University. 3. Department of Research, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital. 4. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo. 5. IPS Norge AS. 6. Department of Research and Section of Early Psychosis Treatment, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Norway is a high-income and high-cost society with a generous welfare system, and it has the largest mental health-related unemployment gap of the OECD countries. The aim of the current article was to present a short history of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) services to increase work participation in Norway. METHOD: We provide a narrative overview of the developments and research on IPS in Norway, from the introduction of supported employment to recent and ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of IPS for various target groups. FINDINGS: While vocational rehabilitation services in Norway have traditionally followed a train-then-place approach, the introduction of supported employment in the early 1990s led to a range of new initiatives to increase work participation. Early implementations were inspired by supported employment but did not follow the evidence-based IPS methodology. More recent developments include a shift toward evidence-based IPS, and the first Norwegian RCT of IPS showed effectiveness on both work- and health-related outcomes among people with moderate to severe mental illness. Several ongoing trials are currently investigating IPS for new target groups, including chronic pain patients and refugees. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results suggest that IPS is more effective than traditional approaches to increase work participation, even in the Norwegian context of a high-cost welfare society. IPS has shown effectiveness in severe as well as more common types of mental illness in Norway, and results from ongoing trials will further reveal whether IPS may be expanded to various new target groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Norway is a high-income and high-cost society with a generous welfare system, and it has the largest mental health-related unemployment gap of the OECD countries. The aim of the current article was to present a short history of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) services to increase work participation in Norway. METHOD: We provide a narrative overview of the developments and research on IPS in Norway, from the introduction of supported employment to recent and ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of IPS for various target groups. FINDINGS: While vocational rehabilitation services in Norway have traditionally followed a train-then-place approach, the introduction of supported employment in the early 1990s led to a range of new initiatives to increase work participation. Early implementations were inspired by supported employment but did not follow the evidence-based IPS methodology. More recent developments include a shift toward evidence-based IPS, and the first Norwegian RCT of IPS showed effectiveness on both work- and health-related outcomes among people with moderate to severe mental illness. Several ongoing trials are currently investigating IPS for new target groups, including chronic painpatients and refugees. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The results suggest that IPS is more effective than traditional approaches to increase work participation, even in the Norwegian context of a high-cost welfare society. IPS has shown effectiveness in severe as well as more common types of mental illness in Norway, and results from ongoing trials will further reveal whether IPS may be expanded to various new target groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Miljana Vukadin; Frederieke G Schaafsma; Harry W C Michon; Bart Cillekens; Peter M van de Ven; Trees Juurlink; Johannes R Anema Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 4.144
Authors: Sina Wittlund; Daniil Butenko; Oda Lekve Brandseth; Beate Brinchmann; Eóin Killackey; David McDaid; Miles Rinaldi; Arnstein Mykletun Journal: J Psychosoc Rehabil Ment Health Date: 2022-09-17