Miles Rinaldi

Having a job is an important component of recovery from mental illness and a source of economic, social, and health benefits. Most people experiencing severe mental illness (SMI) want to work but are excluded from employment opportunities. Employment specialists (ESs) working in individual placement and support (IPS) teams help persons struggling with SMI obtain competitive employment. This study is a qualitative phenomenological study of 10 IPS participants in the Norwegian context, serving to develop a deeper understanding of the IPS phenomenon as it is experienced in the everyday life of IPS participants. The study was designed as a peer research project including four members of a competence group with experience in IPS and SMI. The results, analyzed using the reflective lifeworld research approach, revealed four constituents: “Having a safety net along the way toward employment,” “Feeling more like a person, not just a patient,” “Brighter future,” and “Going above and beyond employment support.” IPS functions as an anchor in participants’ journey toward employment. Strong and meaningful relationships with an ES seem crucial for IPS participants to gain the strength and confidence essential to engage in the job search. IPS participants experience various challenges in everyday life, resulting in ESs exceeding their vocational role to cover the unmet needs that health services seem unable to fully address. Closer coordination between vocational and health services, as well as a deeper focus on everyday life issues, will positively affect IPS participants’ vocational outcomes and quality of life.

Aims and method: To explore the duration of support, reach, effectiveness and equity in access to and outcome of individual placement and support (IPS) in routine clinical practice. A retrospective analysis of routine cross-sectional administrative data was performed for people using the IPS service ( N = 539). Results: A total of 46.2% gained or retained employment, or were supported in education. The median time to gaining employment was 132 days (4.3 months). Further, 84.7% did not require time-unlimited in-work support, and received in-work support for a median of 146 days (4.8 months). There was a significant overrepresentation of people from Black and minority ethnic communities accessing IPS, but no significant differences in outcomes by diagnosis, ethnicity, age or gender. Clinical implications: Most people using IPS services do not appear to need time-unlimited in-work support. Community teams with integrated IPS employment specialists can be optimistic when addressing people's recovery goals of gaining and retaining employment.

Background: Individual placement and support (IPS) is an evidence-based practice that helps individuals with mental illness gain and retain employment. IPS was implemented for young adults at a municipality level through a cross-sectoral collaboration between specialist mental healthcare, primary mental healthcare, and the government funded employment service (NAV). We investigated whether IPS implementation had a causal effect on employment outcomes for all young adults in receipt of a temporary health-related rehabilitation (work assessment allowance, WAA) welfare benefit, measured at the societal level compared to municipalities that did not implement IPS.Method: We used a difference in differences design to estimate the effects of IPS implementation on the outcome of workdays per year using longitudinal registry data. We estimate the average effect of being exposed to IPS implementation during four-years of implementation compared to ten control municipalities without IPS for all WAA recipients.Results: We found a significant, positive, causal effect on societal level employment outcomes of 5.6 (p = 0.001, 95% CI 2.7–8.4) increased workdays per year per individual, equivalent to 12.7 years of increased work in the municipality where IPS was implemented compared to municipalities without IPS. Three years after initial exposure to IPS implementation individuals worked, on average, 10.5 more days per year equating to 23.8 years of increased work.Conclusions: Implementing IPS as a cross sectoral collaboration at a municipality level has a significant, positive, causal, societal impact on employment outcomes for all young adults in receipt of a temporary health-related rehabilitation welfare benefit.

Background: Rates of readmission are high following discharge from psychiatric inpatient care. Evidence suggests that transitional interventions incorporating peer support might improve outcomes. Peer support is rapidly being introduced into mental health services, typically delivered by peer workers (people with experiences of mental health problems trained to support others with similar problems). Evidence for the effectiveness of peer support remains equivocal, and the quality of randomised controlled trials to date is often poor. There is an absence of formal cost-effectiveness studies of peer support in mental health services. Objectives: This programme aimed to develop, pilot and trial a peer support intervention to reduce readmission to inpatient psychiatric care in the year post-discharge. The programme also developed a peer support fidelity index and evaluated the impact of peer support on peer workers. Design: Linked work packages comprised: (1) systematic review and stakeholder consensus work to develop a peer support for discharge intervention; (2) development and psychometric testing of a peer support fidelity index; (3) pilot trial; (4) individually randomised controlled trial of the intervention, including mixed methods process evaluation and economic evaluation; (5) mixed method cohort study to evaluate the impact of peer support on peer workers. The research team included: two experienced service user researchers who oversaw patient and public involvement; service user researchers employed to develop and undertake data collection and analysis; a Lived Experience Advisory Group that informed all stages of the research. Setting: The programme took place in inpatient and community mental health services in seven mental health National Health Service trusts in England. Participants: Participants included 590 psychiatric inpatients who had had at least one previous admission in the preceding 2 years; 32 peer workers who delivered the intervention; and 8 peer workers’ supervisors. Intervention: Participants randomised to peer support were offered at least one session of manualised peer support for discharge prior to discharge and then approximately weekly for 4 months post-discharge. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome for the trial was readmission (formal or informal) to psychiatric inpatient care (readmitted or not) within 1 year of discharge from the index admission. Secondary outcomes included inpatient and emergency mental health service use at 1 year post discharge, plus standardised measures of psychiatric symptom severity and psychosocial outcomes, measured at end of intervention (4 months post discharge). Data sources: Service use data were collected from electronic patient records, standardised measures of outcome and qualitative data were collected by interview. Review methods: We produced two systematic reviews of one-to-one peer support for adults in mental health services. The first included studies of all designs and identified components of peer support interventions; the second was restricted to randomised controlled trials and pooled data from multiple studies to conduct meta-analyses of the effects of peer support. Results: Our systematic review indicated that one-to-one peer support improved individual recovery and empowerment but did not reduce hospitalisation. The main trial demonstrated that one-to-one peer support did not have a significant effect on readmission. There was no significant reduction in secondary service use outcomes at 1-year, or improvement in clinical or psychosocial outcomes at 4 months. Participants who received a pre-defined minimal amount of peer support were less likely to be readmitted than patients in the control group who might also have received the minimal amount if offered. Compared to care as usual, black participants in the intervention group were significantly less likely to be readmitted than patients of any other ethnicity (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.94; p = 0.0305). The economic evaluation indicated a likelihood that peer support offered a reduction in cost in excess of £2500 per participant compared to care as usual (95% confidence interval −£21,546 to £3845). The process evaluation indicated that length and quality of first session of peer support predicted ongoing engagement, and that peer support offered a unique relationship that enables social connection. The impact study indicated that peer workers found their work rewarding and offering opportunities for personal growth but could find the work emotionally and practically challenging while expressing a need for ongoing training and career development. Limitations: In the trial, follow-up rates at 4 months were poor, reducing confidence in some of our analyses of secondary outcome and in a wider societal perspective on our health economic evaluation. Conclusions: One-to-one peer support for discharge from inpatient psychiatric care, offered in addition to care as usual to participants at risk of readmission, is not superior to care as usual alone in the 12 months post-discharge. Future work: Further research is needed to optimise engagement with peer support and better understand experiences and outcomes for people from black and other ethnic communities. Study registration: The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015025621. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN clinical trial register, number ISRCTN 10043328. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (NIHR award ref: RP-PG-1212-20019) and is published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

We explore the implementation and development of individual placement and support (IPS) in Norway. IPS is an evidence‐based practice for supporting people experiencing mental illness to obtain and maintain competitive employment. Implementation of IPS into routine practice has been challenged by different paradigms in vocational rehabilitation, health and welfare policies. Data were mainly collected through individual and joint interviews of IPS experts and key stakeholders involved in the implementation of IPS. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Three themes were derived from the analysis, representing different phases in the implementation process: (1) seeking a way to meet unmet need in work and mental health practice, (2) gathering knowledge and national evidence, and (3) embedding IPS into routine practice. The study demonstrates how health and welfare policy gradually developed IPS from vocational rehabilitation to a mainstreamed welfare employment scheme. This development may secure the future of IPS in Norway. However, the implications for practice in the longer term are unknown. Our study provides insight into how implementation of an evidence‐based practice both influences and is influenced by national policymaking.

Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an evidence-based supported employment program that helps people with severe mental illness to achieve steady, meaningful employment in competitive mainstream jobs. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of Covid-19 restrictions on IPS service delivery in Northern Norway between March and October 2020. In Norway, IPS is in the early stages of full-scale implementation and is therefore potentially sensitive to external stressors such as the Covid-19 pandemic. In October 2020 we conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional survey with IPS employment specialists in Northern Norway (n = 25). The purpose was to collect information about how Covid-19 restrictions between March and October 2020 impacted their ability to deliver IPS services. As a result of Covid-19 restrictions, more than half the employment specialists were reassigned to other roles or non-IPS related work tasks. They also reported less collaborative engagement with clinical teams and employers. 69 (20.4%) of IPS users supported by employment specialists gained employment after the Covid-19 restrictions were introduced and 82.8% of unemployed IPS users continued to seek competitive employment despite Covid-19 restrictions. Covid-19 restrictions appear to have created obstacles for IPS service delivery in Northern Norway and have negatively impacted the employment specialists' collaborative engagement with clinical teams. However, IPS employment specialists have shown strong capabilities in overcoming these challenges and services users have remained motivated to seek employment during the pandemic.

Background: Employment is intrinsic to recovery from mental health conditions, helping people live independently. Systematic reviews indicate supported employment (SE) focused on competitive employment, including individual placement and support (IPS), is effective in helping people with mental health conditions into work. Evidence is limited on cost-effectiveness. We comprehensively reviewed evidence on the economic case for SE/IPS programmes. Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, IBSS, Business Source Complete, and EconLit for economic and return on investment analyses of SE/IPS programmes for mental health conditions. Traditional vocational rehabilitation, sheltered work, and return to work initiatives after sickness absence of less than 1 year were excluded. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers. We assessed quality using the Consolidate Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. The protocol was preregistered with PROSPERO-CRD42020184359. Results: From 40,015 references, 28 studies examined the economic case for IPS, four IPS augmented by another intervention, and 24 other forms of SE. Studies were very heterogenous, quality was variable. Of 41 studies with quality scores over 50%, 10 reported cost per quality-adjusted life year gained, (8 favourable to SE/IPS), 14 net monetary benefits (12 positive), 5 return on investment (4 positive), and 20 cost per employment outcome (14 favorable, 5 inconclusive, 1 negative). Totally, 24 of these 41 studies had monetary benefits that more than outweighed the additional costs of SE/IPS programmes. Conclusions: There is a strong economic case for the implementation of SE/IPS programmes. The economic case is conservative as evidence on long-term impacts of programmes is limited.

Background: Mental health trusts in England were expected to become completely smoke-free and embed smoking cessation practices by 2018. Such policies are fraught with concerns and have received mixed support from mental health staff. Understanding staff attitudes to these practices prior to enforcement of the policy could help design an effective implementation strategy. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with clinical and non-clinical staff in a Mental Health Trust to understand smoking cessation practices and attitudes to the implementation of a completely smoke-free policy. Results: There were 631 responses. Most participants disagreed with the policy on wards (59.6%) and throughout all mental health settings (57.4%). Clinicians expressed significantly lower organizational policy support (P = 0.001) than non-clinicians (P = 0.001). Psychiatrists were more supportive of the organizational items than nurses and allied health professionals. Clinicians’ attitudes towards smoking cessation practices were less positive for those who were current smokers (P < 0.001), but more positive for clinicians who had received or were interested in attending smoking cessation training (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Partial and completely smoke-free policies remain unsupported by staff in mental health settings. Smoking cessation training appears to reinforce rather than alter attitudes towards smoking cessation.

Introduction: In the period shortly after discharge from inpatient to community mental health care, people are at increased risk of self-harm, suicide, and readmission to hospital. Discharge interventions including peer support have shown potential, and there is some evidence that community-based peer support reduces readmissions. However, systematic reviews of peer support in mental health services indicate poor trial quality and a lack of reporting of how peer support is distinctive from other mental health support. This study is designed to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of a peer worker intervention to support discharge from inpatient to community mental health care, and to address issues of trial quality and clarity of reporting of peer support interventions. Methods: This protocol describes an individually randomized controlled superiority trial, hypothesizing that people offered a peer worker discharge intervention in addition to usual follow-up care in the community are less likely to be readmitted in the 12 months post discharge than people receiving usual care alone. A total of 590 people will be recruited shortly before discharge from hospital and randomly allocated to care as usual plus the peer worker intervention or care as usual alone. Manualized peer support provided by trained peer workers begins in hospital and continues for 4 months in the community post discharge. Secondary psychosocial outcomes are assessed at 4 months post discharge, and service use and cost outcomes at 12 months post discharge, alongside a mixed methods process evaluation. Discussion: Clearly specified procedures for sequencing participant allocation and for blinding assessors to allocation, plus full reporting of outcomes, should reduce risk of bias in trial findings and contribute to improved quality in the peer support evidence base. The involvement of members of the study team with direct experience of peer support, mental distress, and using mental health services, in coproducing the intervention and designing the trial, ensures that we theorize and clearly describe the peer worker intervention, and evaluate how peer support is related to any change in outcome. This is an important methodological contribution to the evidence base. Trial registration: This study was prospectively registered as ISRCTN 10043328 on November 28, 2016.