Statewide initiative of intensive psychiatric rehabilitation: Outcomes and relationship to other mental health service use.

Abstract

Gains in rehabilitation outcomes can be expected for those who engage in and complete IPR services, but IPR cannot be expected to result in reduced overall mental health service use and costs. Rather, IPR may improve service access or perhaps ameliorate any containment effect of managed care on service use.

Implementing and Evaluating Goal Setting in a Statewide Psychiatric Rehabilitation Program

“…Based on the duration of service parameters, 18 months was believed to be a period long enough for goal achievement to occur. The sample was a subset of a larger study ( N = 511) of the effectiveness of IPR in Iowa, which included all individuals ever enrolled in the intervention regardless of whether they had chosen a residential or employment goal or achieved a certain level of participation (Ellison, Lyass, Anthony, & Massaro, 2005). Per the CGK intervention, clients set their own expressed, personally meaningful, measurable, and specific goals in the study.…”

“…A description of the factors leading to its implementation in Iowa, as well as its service delivery structures, financial reimbursements, personnel requirements, and performance indicators, has been previously provided (Ellison et al, 2002). A subsequent analysis of the Iowa IPR statewide implementation examined the outcomes of residential status, employment status, earnings, mental health service utilization, and costs (Ellison et al, 2011). Unlike the previous IPR studies, the present study focuses specifically on the goal setting component of the IPR service process.…”

Recovery in Supported Accommodations: A Scoping Review and Synthesis of Interventions for People with Severe Mental Illness

“…Three of the goal attainment studies were RCTs, and four were uncontrolled/pre-post design. Five of these studies showed (small) positive results (Ellison et al 2011;Fagan-Pryor et al 2009;Magliano et al 2016;Pioli et al 2006;Vandevooren et al 2007), among others, concerning functioning and residential status. Bitter et al (2017) evaluated, by means of a cluster randomized trial, CARe: A rehabilitation approach based on the strengths model and personal recovery in teams of supported accommodation, but did not find any differences in outcomes between the clients of trained and untrained teams.…”

“…Of the nine studies that evaluated interventions aimed at goal attainment, seven interventions were totally or partly based on the 'choose-get-keep' model (Anthony et al 2014;Ellison et al 2011;Fagan-Pryor et al 2009;Magliano et al 2016;Pioli et al 2006;Sanches et al 2015;Vandevooren et al 2007). Three of the goal attainment studies were RCTs, and four were uncontrolled/pre-post design.…”

A qualitative study of how people with severe mental illness experience living in sheltered housing with a private fully equipped apartment

“…The main goal of sheltered housing is often to support the residents in a rehabilitation process to prevent unnecessary admissions to mental health institutions [ 8 , 9 ]. However, a review of studies on sheltered housing found that most studies in this area did not give enough details to classify them according to eight housing dimensions for people with SMI; 1) the individual owns the housing or has a lease in his/her own name, 2) housing and service agencies are legally and functionally separate, 3) housing is integrated into the community, 4) housing is affordable (i.e., no more than 40 % of adjusted gross income), 5) services (including medication) offered are voluntary, 6) the individual has choice of the housing and services, 7) services are community-based (there are no live-in staff) and 8) crisis services are available 24 h a day, 7 days a week [ 10 ].…”