| Literature DB >> 32641009 |
Susan Prior1, Donald Maciver2, Randi W Aas3, Bonnie Kirsh4, Annika Lexen5, Lana van Niekerk6, Linda Irvine Fitzpatrick7, Kirsty Forsyth2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Employment is good for physical and mental health, however people with severe mental illness (SMI) are often excluded from employment. Standard Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is effective in supporting around 55% of people with SMI into employment or education. Current research considers enhancements to IPS to improve outcomes for those requiring more complex interventions. Clinicians need to better understand who will benefit from these enhanced IPS interventions. This study offers a new enhanced IPS intervention and an approach to predicting who may achieve successful outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Employment; Enhanced Individual Placement & Support; Model of human occupation; Severe mental illness
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32641009 PMCID: PMC7346406 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-020-02745-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Principles of Standard Individual Placement and Support & Enhanced Individual Placement and Support
| Principles of Standard Individual Placement and Support (Bond et al. 2011) | |
| 1. Eligibility is based on consumer choice | |
| 2. Competitive employment is the goal | |
| 3. Supported employment is integrated with treatment | |
| 4. Personalized benefits planning is provided | |
| 5. Rapid job search is encouraged | |
| 6. Employment specialists build employer relationships | |
| 7. Follow-along supports are continuous | |
| 8. Consumer preferences are important | |
| Additional Principals for Enhanced Individual Placement and Support | |
| 9. Delivered by Occupational Therapists | |
| 10. Underpinned by the Model of Human Occupation | |
| 11. Use of Worker Role Interview at start of program | |
| 12. Focus on integrating daily life with working life |
Theoretically defined psychosocial variables (derived from WRI)
| Psychosocial areas | Theoretical Concept From Moho | Variable Derived From Theory | Definition of variable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motivational variables | Personal Causation | Assesses abilities and Limitations; | Individual’s capacity to accurately assess his/her abilities and what they mean for work performance. |
| Expectation of job success; | A client’s belief that he/she will be able to work. | ||
| Takes responsibility; | How much responsibility a client takes for his/her work actions and their consequences. | ||
| Values | Commitment to work; | The client’s commitment to work and importance placed on work. | |
| Work-related goals; | Ability to set and attain goals at his/her work setting or for finding work | ||
| Interests | Enjoys work; | Pleasure or enjoyment client finds within work. | |
| Pursues interests; | The ability of an individual to assess own interests and find ways to use these skills in &/ outside of the work situation. | ||
| Habitual variables | Roles | Appraises work expectations; | Client’s ability to internalize both general and specific expectations of work. |
| Influence of other roles; | How much other roles in the client’s life influence his/her return to work | ||
| Habits | Work Habits; | Degree of organization and routine in work. | |
| Daily Routine; | Degree of organization and routine outside of work. | ||
| Adapts routines to minimize difficulties; | How the person has managed use of time, routine, and habits since the injury or since being out of work. | ||
| Skills | Performance Capacity | Motor Skills | Moving body or objects in work environment |
| Process Skills | Logically sequencing actions; selecting & using appropriate materials/tools; adapting performance to overcome obstacles | ||
| Interaction and Communication Skills | |||
| Ability to convey intentions and needs; express self to allow for involvement and co-ordinated social action | |||
| Environment | Environment | Perception of physical work setting; | The physical environment in which the client works, or hopes to work in. |
| Family’s and peers’ influence on the client’s ability to return to previous work. | |||
| Perception of family and peers; | Influence of boss and/or company on the ability of client to return to previous work / find & keep work. | ||
| Perception of boss and/or company; | |||
| Co-workers’ influence on client’s ability to return to previous work and find and keep work. | |||
| Perception of co-workers |
Therapists’ Experience and Contribution of Data
| Level of experience (all competent in MOHO and IPS) | Number of assessments included in dataset | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % clinicians | n | % dataset | |
| Novice (No IPS Certificate) | 4 | 19 | 11 | 5% |
| Novice | 6 | 29 | 25 | 12% |
| Experienced | 8 | 38 | 96 | 48% |
| Expert | 3 | 14 | 70 | 35% |
Demographic Characteristics and summary of missing data
| Characteristic | Missing data | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0 | 0% | ||
| 37.4 | 10.8 | |||
| n | % | n | % | |
| Gender | 0 | 0% | ||
| male | 124 | 61.4% | ||
| female | 78 | 38.6% | ||
| Ehnicity | 0 | 0% | ||
| other ethnic group | 17 | 8.4% | ||
| White | 185 | 91.6% | ||
| Diagnosis | 0 | 0% | ||
| ICD10 Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders | 105 | 52.0% | ||
| ICD10 Mood [affective] disorders | 67 | 33.2% | ||
| ICD10 other diagnosis | 30 | 14.9% | ||
| SIMD | 0 | 0% | ||
| most deprived quintile 1 | 38 | 18.8% | ||
| quintile 2 | 35 | 17.3% | ||
| quintile 3 | 33 | 16.3% | ||
| quintile 4 | 32 | 15.8% | ||
| least deprived quintile 5 | 64 | 31.7% | ||
| Marital status | 6 | 3.0% | ||
| Married / de facto | 33 | 16.8% | ||
| Single | 163 | 83.2% | ||
| Living Situation | 4 | 2.0% | ||
| With others | 97 | 49.0% | ||
| Alone | 101 | 51.0% | ||
| Qualification Attainment | 2 | 1.0% | ||
| Did Not Attain School Quals | 18 | 9.0% | ||
| Exams from School | 61 | 30.5% | ||
| Further Education | 121 | 60.5% | ||
| Previous Employment | 0 | 0.0% | ||
| Previous employment | 182 | 90.1% | ||
| No previous experience | 20 | 9.9% | ||
Demographic Bivariate analysis
| Characteristic | Attained employment/education | Did not attain employment/education | Two Sample t-test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | t | df | ||
| Age | −2.45 | 200 | 0.02 | ||||
| n | % | n | % | Pearson’s Chi-square test. (*with Yates Correction) | |||
| χ2 | df | ||||||
| Gender | |||||||
| Male | 81 | 40.1% | 43 | 21.3% | 0.33* | 1 | 0.56 |
| Female | 47 | 23.3% | 31 | 15.4% | |||
| Ehnicity | |||||||
| Other ethnic group | 12 | 5.9% | 5 | 2.5% | 0.15* | 1 | 0.70 |
| White | 116 | 57.4% | 69 | 34.2% | |||
| SMID | |||||||
| Least deprived area | 49 | 24.3% | 15 | 7.4% | 6.22* | 1 | 0.01 |
| More deprived area | 79 | 39.1% | 59 | 29.2% | |||
| Diagnosis | |||||||
| ICD10 Schizophrenia, schizotypal & delusional | 62 | 30.7% | 43 | 21.3% | 2.97 | 2 | 0.23 |
| ICD10 Mood [affective] disorders | 48 | 23.8% | 19 | 9.4% | |||
| ICD10 other diagnosis | 18 | 8.9% | 12 | 5.9% | |||
| Marital Status | |||||||
| Married / defacto | 24 | 12.2% | 9 | 4.6% | 0.95* | 1 | 0.33 |
| Single | 101 | 51.5% | 62 | 31.6% | |||
| Living Situation | |||||||
| With others | 64 | 32.3% | 33 | 16.7% | 0.27* | 1 | 0.60 |
| Alone | 62 | 31.3% | 39 | 19.7% | |||
| Educational Attainment | |||||||
| School & Further Education Quals | 119 | 59.5% | 63 | 31.5% | 3.86* | 1 | 0.05 |
| Did Not Attain School Quals | 7 | 3.5% | 11 | 5.5% | |||
| PREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT | |||||||
| Previous employment | 117 | 57.9% | 65 | 32.2% | 0.33* | 1 | 0.57 |
| No previous experience | 11 | 5.5% | 9 | 4.5% | |||
* indicates that the Pearson's has been calculated with Yates correction
Psychosocial variables Bivariate analysis
| Characteristic | Attained employment/education | Did not attain employment/education | Pearson’s Chi-square test. (*with Yates Correction) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | χ2 | |||
| Expectation of success in work (ExpSuc) | |||||||
| Supports | 73 | 36.1% | 36 | 17.8% | 1.01* | 1 | 0.31 |
| Interferes | 55 | 27.2% | 38 | 18.81% | |||
| Enjoys work (Enjoy) | |||||||
| Supports | 94 | 47.7% | 56 | 28.4% | 0.00* | 1 | 1.00 |
| Interferes | 30 | 15.2% | 17 | 8.6% | |||
| Pursues interests (Interest) | |||||||
| Supports | 71 | 35.5% | 38 | 19.0% | 0.29* | 1 | 0.59 |
| Interferes | 55 | 27.5% | 36 | 18.0% | |||
| Influence of other roles | |||||||
| Supports | 97 | 48.0% | 49 | 24.3% | 1.69* | 1 | 0.19 |
| Interferes | 31 | 15.4% | 25 | 12.4% | |||
| Perception of physical work setting | |||||||
| Supports | 87 | 47.8% | 47 | 25.8% | 0.00* | 1 | 0.97 |
| Interferes | 32 | 17.6% | 16 | 8.8% | |||
| Perception of family and peers | |||||||
| Supports | 98 | 52.7% | 44 | 23.7% | 1.72* | 1 | 0.19 |
| Interferes | 25 | 13.4% | 19 | 10.2% | |||
| Perception of boss and/or company | |||||||
| Supports | 49 | 34.0% | 29 | 20.1% | 0.01* | 1 | 0.91 |
| Interferes | 43 | 29.9% | 23 | 16.0% | |||
| Perception of co-workers | |||||||
| Supports | 59 | 43.1% | 30 | 21.9% | 0.00* | 1 | 1.00 |
| Interferes | 32 | 23.4% | 16 | 11.7% | |||
* indicates that the Pearson's has been calculated with Yates correction
Model of attainment of employment or education for enhanced IPS
| Constant | −0.03 (0.72) | 0.23 | 0.96 | 3.91 |
| Adapts Routines to Minimize Difficulties | 1.28 (0.39) *** | 1.72 | 3.61 | 7.86 |
| Work-Related Goals | 0.89 (0.36)* | 1.21 | 2.43 | 4.99 |
| Appraises Abilities and Limitations | 0.37(0.42) | 0.63 | 1.45 | 3.34 |
| Work Routines | 0.06 (0.41) | 0.47 | 1.07 | 2.38 |
| Responsibility | 0.09 (0.39) | 0.51 | 1.09 | 2.33 |
| Age | −0.03 (0.02) | 0.94 | 0.97 | 1.00 |
| Living in Least Deprived Area | −0.98 (0.39) * | 1.25 | 2.65 | 5.90 |
R = 0.16 (Hosmer-Lemeshow), 0.19(Cox-Snell), 0.26 (Nagelkerke)
Model 흌2(7) = 41.38 p < .001
*p < 0.05 ***p < 0.001