Adapting Evidence-Based Interventions to Fit Usual Practice: Staff Roles and Consumer Choice in Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Abstract
This proof-of-concept study tested the viability of adapting a specialized practice to fit multi-service programs by switching from specialist to generalist staff roles. The intervention under study was supported employment, an evidence-based practice for adults with severe mental illness. Program data on participant characteristics, attendance, staff contact, and employment were retrieved for the 2007 calendar year (N = 99). Two hierarchical regression analyses compared (1) participants with any versus no mainstream employment, and (2) participants who started a new job in 2007 versus all other participants. In both analyses, individual participant counts of days on which employment services were provided and count of different employment service providers independently predicted mainstream employment over and above program attendance and background factors. The study program's employment rate approximated rates published for specialized supported employment programs, suggesting that it is feasible to adapt specialized evidence-based practices to fit multi-service settings without compromising service quality.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
IPS can be effectively delivered in a 'multi-server' program center instead of specialized IPS delivery centers.
“Instead of using specialized IPS delivery centers, these researchers were able to show that IPS can be effectively delivered in a ‘multi-server’ program center.”
From Supported employment: Meta-analysis and review of randomized controlled trials of individual placement and support (2019) · cites this paper as [67]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 61 · Cited by 6
- Authors
- Barreira, P. J., Tepper, M. C., Gold, P. B., Holley, D., & Macias, C.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Cambridge Health Alliance (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- McLean Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Macias, Cathaleene
- Venue
- Psychiatric Quarterly
- Published
- 2010-02-23
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 139-155
- ISSN
- 0033-2720 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6709
- OpenAlex
- W2066865960
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 61
- Citations by year
- 2022: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 2.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychiatric Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Keywords
- supported employment, psychiatric rehabilitation, severe mental illness, consumer choice, employment services, program attendance
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Mental Disorders, Community Mental Health Services, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Participation, Professional-Patient Relations, Rehabilitation, Program Evaluation, Employment, Supported, Evidence-Based Medicine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review