No abstract

Objective: Evidence concerning strengths model of case management (SMCM) remains mixed. This study aimed to test the hypotheses that higher fidelity to SMCM is associated with improved quality of life (QoL), hope, community participation, community functioning, more days of competitive employment and of independent living, and fewer days of hospitalization. Methods: SMCM was implemented over a 3-year period, at seven sites in the Canadian provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Québec, and Ontario. Independent assessors visited 14 teams at the seven sites to evaluate fidelity at baseline and 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months later. Participants (N = 311) answered standardized questionnaires at 4.5-month intervals up to 18 months. Fidelity assessments were interpolated so they could be associated with questionnaire responses. Linear mixed-effects models and generalized linear models were estimated. Results: Fidelity increased significantly, with all sites except one achieving or approaching good fidelity within 36 months. Fidelity was not significantly associated with any of the outcome measures, although all estimated directions of relationships were consistent with our hypotheses. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: In a pragmatic study of real-world implementation of the strengths model at seven sites, no statistically significant relationships between fidelity and outcomes were found. Low variation in fidelity across individuals, modest sample size, and limited ability to detect change over 18 months, may have contributed to these null findings. Impact and ImplicationsImplementation of strengths model of case management (SMCM) was largely successful at seven sites in three Canadian provinces, but higher fidelity was not significantly associated with improved client outcomes. The sample size of 311 may have been insufficient. Given mixed findings from previous studies, and the compatibility of SMCM with a recovery orientation, further research, with strong designs and large sample sizes, is needed. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

No abstract