The number of people who combine work and unpaid care is increasing rapidly as more people need care, public and private care systems are progressively under pressure and more people are required to work for longer. Without adequate support, these working carers may experience detrimental effects on their well-being. To adequately support working carers, it is important to first understand the challenges they face. A scoping review was carried out, using Arksey and O’Malley's framework, to map the challenges of combining work and care and solutions described in the literature to address these challenges. The search included academic and grey literature between 2008 and 2018 and was conducted in April 2018, using electronic academic databases and reference list checks. Ninety-two publications were mapped, and the content analysed thematically. A conceptual framework was derived from the analysis which identified primary challenges (C1), directly resulting from combining work and care, primary solutions (S1) aiming to address these, secondary challenges (C2) resulting from solutions and secondary solutions (S2) aiming to address secondary challenges. Primary challenges were: (a) high and/or competing demands; (b) psychosocial/-emotional stressors; (c) distance; (d) carer's health; (e) returning to work; and (f) financial pressure. This framework serves to help those aiming to support working carers to better understand the challenges they face and those developing solutions for the challenges of combining work and care to consider potential consequences or barriers. Gaps in the literature have been identified and discussed.
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.
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.
