BackgroundThe CARe methodology aims to improve the quality of life of people with severe mental illness by supporting them in realizing their goals, handling their vulnerability and improving the quality of their social environment. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the CARe methodology for people with severe mental illness on their quality of life, personal recovery, participation, hope, empowerment, self-efficacy beliefs and unmet needs.MethodsA cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) was conducted in 14 teams of three organizations for sheltered and supported housing in the Netherlands. Teams in the intervention group received training in the CARe methodology. Teams in the control group continued working according to care as usual. Questionnaires were filled out at baseline, after 10 months and after 20 months. A total of 263 clients participated in the study.ResultsQuality of life increased in both groups, however, no differences between the intervention and control group were found. Recovery and social functioning did not change over time. Regarding the secondary outcomes, the number of unmet needs decreased in both groups. All intervention teams received the complete training program. The model fidelity at T1 was 53.4% for the intervention group and 33.4% for the control group. At T2 this was 50.6% for the intervention group and 37.2% for the control group.ConclusionAll clients improved in quality of life. However we did not find significant differences between the clients of the both conditions on any outcome measure. Possible explanations of these results are: the difficulty to implement rehabilitation-supporting practice, the content of the methodology and the difficulty to improve the lives of a group of people with longstanding and severe impairments in a relatively short period. More research is needed on how to improve effects of rehabilitation trainings in practice and on outcome level.Trial registration ISRCTN77355880, retrospectively registered (05/07/2013).

BackgroundHousing services aim to support people with mental illness in their daily life and recovery. As the level of recovery differs between service users, the quality of life and care needs also might vary. However, the type and amount of care and support that service users receive do not always match their recovery. In order to improve the quality of care, this study aims to explore whether subgroups of service users exist based on three dimensions of recovery and to examine and compare the quality of life and care needs of the persons in these subgroups.MethodsLatent class analysis was performed with data from 263 service users of housing services in the Netherlands. Classes were based on three variables: personal recovery (Mental Health Recovery Measure), social recovery (Social Functioning Scale), and clinical recovery (Brief Symptom Inventory). Subsequently, the quality of life (MANSA) and care needs (CANSAS) of the different classes were analysed by the use of descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsThree classes could be distinguished. Class 1 (45%) comprised of people who score the highest of the three classes in terms of personal and social recovery and who experience the least number of symptoms. People in class 2 (44%) and class 3 (11%) score significantly lower on personal and social recovery, and they experience significantly more symptoms compared to class 1. The distinction between class 2 and 3 can be made on the significantly higher number of symptoms in class 3. All three classes differ significantly on quality of life and unmet needs.ConclusionsThe quality of life of service users of housing services needs improvement, as even persons in the best-recovered subgroup have a lower quality of life than the average population. Workers of housing services need to be aware of the recovery of a client and what his or her individual needs and goals are. Furthermore, better care (allocation) concerning mental and physical health and rehabilitation is needed. Care should be provided on all dimensions of recovery at the same time, therefore mental health care organisations should work together and integrate their services.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN77355880 retrospectively registered 05/07/2013.

Research on the recovery domains beside clinical recovery of people with severe mental illness in need of supported accommodations is limited. The aim of this study was (1) to investigate which recovery interventions exist for this group of people and (2) to explore the scientific evidence. We conducted a scoping review, including studies with different designs, evaluating the effectiveness the recovery interventions available. The search resulted in 53 eligible articles of which 22 focused on societal recovery, six on personal recovery, five on functional recovery, 13 on lifestyle-interventions, and seven on creative and spiritual interventions. About a quarter of these interventions showed added value and half of them initial promising results. The research in this area is still limited, but a number of recovery promoting interventions on other areas than clinical recovery have been developed and evaluated. Further innovation and research to strengthen and repeat the evidence are needed.

BackgroundThere is an increasing amount of evidence for the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for people with severe mental illness (SMI). In the Netherlands, a rehabilitation methodology that is well known and often applied is the Comprehensive Approach to Rehabilitation (CARe) methodology. The overall goal of the CARe methodology is to improve the client’s quality of life by supporting the client in realizing his/her goals and wishes, handling his/her vulnerability and improving the quality of his/her social environment. The methodology is strongly influenced by the concept of ‘personal recovery’ and the ‘strengths case management model’. No controlled effect studies have been conducted hitherto regarding the CARe methodology.Methods/designThis study is a two-armed cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) that will be executed in teams from three organizations for sheltered and supported housing, which provide services to people with long-term severe mental illness. Teams in the intervention group will receive the multiple-day CARe methodology training from a specialized institute and start working according the CARe Methodology guideline. Teams in the control group will continue working in their usual way. Standardized questionnaires will be completed at baseline (T0), and 10 (T1) and 20 months (T2) post baseline. Primary outcomes are recovery, social functioning and quality of life. The model fidelity of the CARe methodology will be assessed at T1 and T2.DiscussionThis study is the first controlled effect study on the CARe methodology and one of the few RCTs on a broad rehabilitation method or strength-based approach. This study is relevant because mental health care organizations have become increasingly interested in recovery and rehabilitation-oriented care.Trial registrationThe trial registration number is ISRCTN77355880.

Background Several studies have reported difficulties concerning the implementation of recovery‐oriented interventions. In this study, the effect of training in the Comprehensive Approach to Rehabilitation (CARe) on daily practice was evaluated. Additionally, we aimed to acquire insight into the experiences with the implementation process involving professionals, management and trainers. Methods Fourteen teams for sheltered and supported housing in the Netherlands participated in this study. As part of a cluster‐randomised controlled trial (RCT) design, eight teams received training in the CARe methodology. Model fidelity (using the CARe fidelity audit) and professionals’ knowledge of recovery (using the Recovery Knowledge Inventory) were measured for all teams until 20 months after the start. Afterwards, an evaluation meeting with participating stakeholders was organised in which barriers and facilitators of the implementation of the CARe methodology were inventoried. Results Ten months after the training, the intervention teams scored higher than the control teams on the fidelity subscales: ‘recovery’, ‘strengths orientation’ and ‘amount of training and coaching’. Twenty months after the training, only the effect of ‘amount of coaching and training’ remained. Additionally, ‘methodological working’ clearly differed between the groups after 20 months in favour of the intervention teams. In all teams, model fidelity was moderate at both measurements. The knowledge of recovery of the trained teams was slightly and significantly higher at 10 and 20 months after training. Although professionals were positive about recovery and strength‐oriented working, they experienced several organisational and societal barriers. Conclusion Training in the CARe methodology improved the fidelity and knowledge of recovery among professionals. However, the differences were small, and fidelity decreased over time. More in‐depth knowledge is needed on which barriers professionals experience in practice so that tailored training and implementation strategies can be developed. Furthermore, more attention is needed for professional development and the translation of theory into practice.