4.3 Article

Three year follow-up study of an integrated supported employment for individuals with severe mental illness

期刊

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/00048670903393613

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Services Research Committee (HHSRF) of the Hong Kong Government [03040031]
  2. Richmond Fellowship of Hong Kong
  3. Baptist Oi Kwan Social Service
  4. Occupational Therapy Depart ment of Kwai Chung Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to examine and compare the longterm effectiveness of the Integrated Supported Employment (ISE) programme, which consists of individual placement and support (IPS) and work-related social skills training, with the PS programme on the vocational and nonvocational outcomes among individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) over a period of 3 years. Method: One hundred and eighty-nine participants with SMI were recruited from two non-government organizations and three day hospitals in Hong Kong and randomly assigned into the ISE (n = 58), IPS (n = 65) and traditional vocational rehabilitation (TVR) (n = 66) groups. Vocational and non-vocational outcomes of the ISE and IPS participants were collected by a blind and independent assessor at 7 11, 15, 21, 27, 33 and 39 months after their admission, whereas the TVR groups were assessed only up to the 15th month follow up. Results: After 39 months of service provision, ISE participants obtained higher employment rate (82.8% vs 61.5%) and longer job tenure (46.94 weeks vs 36.17 weeks) than the IPS participants. Only 6.1% of TVR participants were able to obtain employment before the 15th month follow up. Fewer interpersonal conflicts at the workplace were reported for the ISE participants. Advantages of the ISE participants over IPS participants on non-vocational outcomes were not conclusive. Conclusion: The long-term effectiveness of the ISE programme in enhancing employment rates and job tenures among individuals with SMI was demonstrated by this randomized controlled trial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据