PURPOSE: To investigate factors that influence participation in and needs for work and other daytime activities among individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMI). METHODS: A latent class analysis using routine outcome monitoring data from 1069 patients was conducted to investigate whether subgroups of individuals with SMI can be distinguished based on participation in work or other daytime activities, needs for care in these areas, and the differences between these subgroups. RESULTS: Four subgroups could be distinguished: (1) an inactive group without daytime activities or paid employment and many needs for care in these areas; (2) a moderately active group with some daytime activities, no paid employment, and few needs for care; (3) an active group with more daytime activities, no paid employment, and mainly met needs for care; and (4) a group engaged in paid employment without needs for care in this area. Groups differed significantly from each other in age, duration in MHC, living situation, educational level, having a life partner or not, needs for care regarding social contacts, quality of life, psychosocial functioning, and psychiatric symptoms. Differences were not found for clinical diagnosis or gender. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with SMI, different subgroups can be distinguished based on employment situation, daytime activities, and needs for care in these areas. Subgroups differ from each other on patient characteristics and each subgroup poses specific challenges, underlining the need for tailored rehabilitation interventions. Special attention is needed for individuals who are involuntarily inactive, with severe psychiatric symptoms and problems in psychosocial functioning.
MULTIFILE
In many Western welfare states, social work services that have traditionally been provided by paid employees are being replaced by family support, community support, informal networks and volunteering. For the field of social work, it is relevant to know what it matters to beneficiaries whether services are provided by volunteers or by paid employees. The central question of this article is therefore as follows: What are the differences between unpaid and paid social services for beneficiaries? The article is based on literature review and focus groups.Our results suggest that beneficiaries do experience some differences regarding the advantages of volunteer services for beneficiaries that can be summarized in three propositions: (1) Services provided by volunteers are more relational than are services provided by paid employees, and they are therefore perceived as more equal, flexible and sincere. (2) The effects of volunteer services for beneficiaries are not exclusively positive. (3) Although particular tasks may appear to be interchangeable to some extent, the relative advantages of a given task depend upon whether it is performed by a paid worker or by a volunteer. Additional research is needed in order to provide further validation.
Background: People with severe mental illnesses (SMIs) have difficulty participating in society through work or other daily activities. Aims: To establish the effectiveness with which the Boston University Approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) improves the level of social participation in people with SMIs, in the Netherlands. Method: In a randomized controlled trial involving 188 people with SMIs, we compared BPR (n = 98) with an Active Control Condition (ACC, n = 90) (Trial registration ISRCTN88987322). Multilevel modeling was used to study intervention effects over two six-month periods. The primary outcome measure was level of social participation, expressed as having participated in paid or unpaid employment over the past six months, as the total hours spent in paid or unpaid employment, and as the current level of social participation. Secondary outcome measures were clients’ views on rehabilitation goal attainment, Quality of Life (QOL), personal recovery, self-efficacy, and psychosocial functioning. Results: During the study, social participation, QOL, and psychosocial functioning improved in patients in both groups. However, BPR was not more effective than ACC on any of the outcomes. Better social participation was predicted by previous work experience and a lower intensity of psychiatric symptoms. Conclusions: While ACC was as effective as BPR in improving the social participation of individuals with SMIs, much higher percentages of participants in our sample found (paid) work or other meaningful activities than in observational studies without specific support for social participation. This suggests that focused rehabilitation efforts are beneficial, irrespective of the specific methodology used.
