Why can’t we fund supported employment?

Mueser, Kim T.; Cook, Judith Α.

doi:10.1037/prj0000203

Cited by 21 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Supported employment that fosters competitive employment for people with psychiatric disabilities was also identified as a useful employment model in resource-poor settings [34]. Individual placement and support has been demonstrated to be very effective in HICs [12,51], but its applicability in African countries and other LMICs is still limited by finances and lack of government support [2], which has also been noted in HICS [13]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Where they exist and are taken up, they increase the employment opportunities for persons with a disability [13,38]. In this study, we observed three models of employment for persons with psychiatric disabilities.…”

Section: Other Facilitators Of Employability For People With Psychiatmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…To overcome such barriers, studies recommend models such as supported employment (SE) for the employment of persons with mental disability [12]. In some settings, microfinance and cash transfers have been recommended to boost self-employment as an alternative to SE programmes [2,13], especially in LMICs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Barriers to and facilitators of employment for people with psychiatric disabilities in Africa: a scoping review

Ebuenyi

Syurina

Bunders

et al. 2018

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite the importance of inclusive employment, described in Goal 8 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), employment of persons with psychiatric disabilities in Africa is lower than among the general population. Objective: The aim of this scoping review is to explore evidence related to the barriers to and facilitators of employment of persons with psychiatric disabilities in Africa. Methods: A literature search was conducted using six relevant electronic databases of articles published between 1990 and 2017. Results: Eight studies were identified and analysed regarding barriers and facilitators of employment of persons with psychiatric disabilities. The dynamic adaptation of the bio-psycho-social model was used as an analytical framework. Identified barriers include ill health, (anticipated) psychiatric illness, social stigma and discrimination, negative attitudes among employers and the lack of social support and government welfare. Facilitators of employment include stability of mental illness, heightened self-esteem, a personal decision to work despite stigma, competitive and supported employment, reduction in social barriers/stigma and workplace accommodations. Conclusion: Employment of persons with psychiatric disabilities is essential, yet there is dearth of scientific evidence to identify contextual models that might be useful in African countries and other low-and middle countries (LMICs). This gap in information would benefit from further research to improve the employment rates of persons with psychiatric disabilities in Africa.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Other Facilitators Of Employability For People With Psychiatmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Barriers to and facilitators of employment for people with psychiatric disabilities in Africa: a scoping review

Ebuenyi

Syurina

Bunders

et al. 2018

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite evidence for the efficacy of IPS, implementation at a large scale and as a standard intervention within more traditional treatment approaches has not been the norm (20)(21)(22)(23)(24). There are several reasons for this.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐regression of the impact of policy on the efficacy of individual placement and support

Brinchmann

Widding‐Havneraas

Modini

et al. 2019

Acta Psychiatr Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Individual placement and support (IPS) has shown consistently better outcomes on competitive employment for patients with severe mental illness than traditional vocational rehabilitation. The evidence for efficacy originates from few countries, and generalization to different countries has been questioned. This has delayed implementation of IPS and led to requests for country‐specific RCTs. This meta‐analysis examines if evidence for IPS efficacy can be generalized between rather different countries. Methods A systematic search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to identify RCTs. Overall efficacy was established by meta‐analysis. The generalizability of IPS efficacy between countries was analysed by random‐effects meta‐regression, employing country‐ and date‐specific contextual data obtained from the OECD and the World Bank. Results The systematic review identified 27 RCTs. Employment rates are more than doubled in IPS compared with standard vocational rehabilitation (RR 2.07 95% CI 1.82–2.35). The efficacy of IPS was marginally moderated by strong legal protection against dismissals. It was not moderated by regulation of temporary employment, generosity of disability benefits, type of integration policies, GDP, unemployment rate or employment rate for those with low education. Conclusions The evidence for efficacy of IPS is very strong. The efficacy of IPS can be generalized between countries.

show abstract

“…Trotz guter Evidenz und Verankerung in den Behandlungsleitlinien werden wirksame Interventionen zur Förderung arbeitsbezogener Teilhabe gegenwärtig zu selten während der klinischen Behandlung eingesetzt. Dieser Missstand ist folgenschwer, weil durch solche Interventionen der Exklusion aus dem Arbeitsleben und der damit einhergehenden Verschlechterung der Funktionalität frühzeitig entgegengewirkt werden könnte [8,9]. Insbesondere Schnittstellenprobleme und Versorgungslücken zwischen klinischer Versorgung (SGB V), Rehabilitation (SGB II, III, IX) und Eingliederungshilfe (SGB XII) sowie die fehlende Zusammenarbeit mit den Betrieben und Arbeitgebern erschweren diesen Prozess [10,11].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Arbeitsbezogene Teilhabebeeinträchtigungen und Unterstützungsbedarf von Patienten in der (teil-)stationären psychiatrischen Versorgung

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Ziel Rund 80 % der Patienten in psychiatrischen Kliniken haben wesentliche arbeitsbezogene Teilhabebeeinträchtigungen und sind vom Arbeitsmarkt ausgeschlossen. Methode Stichtagsbefragung von 176 Patienten in (teil-)stationärer Behandlung bzgl. ihrer arbeitsbezogenen Teilhabebeeinträchtigungen, ihres Unterstützungsbedarfs und konkret erhaltener Hilfe. Ergebnisse Von 90 der 176 angefragten Patienten lagen Daten vor. 63 % der Patienten (n = 57) gaben Unterstützungsbedarf an; von diesen würden 84 % an einem Jobcoaching teilnehmen. 49 % der Patienten wurden auf das Thema Arbeit angesprochen. Unabhängig vom Unterstützungsbedarf erhielten nur 20 % der Patienten konkrete Hilfe. Starken Unterstützungsbedarf gaben junge Erwachsene (77 %) und Ersterkrankte (73 %) an. Schlussfolgerungen Es gibt einen hohen, aber unzureichend gedeckten Unterstützungsbedarf. Die routinemäßige Bedarfsermittlung und die Implementierung evidenzbasierter Methoden könnten arbeitsbezogene Teilhabechancen wesentlich verbessern.

show abstract

Why can’t we fund supported employment?

Cited by 21 publications

References 39 publications

Barriers to and facilitators of employment for people with psychiatric disabilities in Africa: a scoping review

Barriers to and facilitators of employment for people with psychiatric disabilities in Africa: a scoping review

A meta‐regression of the impact of policy on the efficacy of individual placement and support

Arbeitsbezogene Teilhabebeeinträchtigungen und Unterstützungsbedarf von Patienten in der (teil-)stationären psychiatrischen Versorgung

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About