Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33145494›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2020

A structured mixed method process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of Individual Placement and Support (IPS).

Tonje Fyhn, Kari Ludvigsen, Silje E Reme, Frederieke Schaafsma

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01964092 (Effect Evaluation of Individual Placement and Support), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01964092 nacompletednot on this map

Effect Evaluation of Individual Placement and Support (IPS)

TypeinterventionalSponsorNORCE Norwegian Research Centre ASRan2013 to 2018Enrolled410ConditionsPsychosis, Substance Abuse, Depression, AnxietyArmsIndividual Placement and Support, Ordinary employment schemes
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tonje FyhnNORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Postboks 7810, 5020 Bergen, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-1768-5336
Kari LudvigsenDepartment of Pedagogy, Religion and Social Studies, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Inndalsveien 28, 5063 Bergen, Norway.
Silje E RemeDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Forskningsveien 3A, 0373 Oslo, Norway.
Frederieke SchaafsmaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, PO Box 7057, Amsterdam, 1007 MB The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividual Placement and Support (IPS) is an evidence-based work rehabilitation program helping people with moderate to severe mental illness to obtain ordinary employment. Although IPS has proven superior to other work rehabilitation programs, in many studies, the majority of the participants remain unemployed. Structured process evaluations of IPS that use mixed methods are scarce, although they could identify implementation aspects that may enhance its effect. The aim of the current study is to assess reach, fidelity, and identify barriers and facilitators to implement IPS.

methodsThe process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial including six IPS centers, comparing IPS with treatment as usual in a population of patients in treatment for moderate to severe mental illness. Mixed methods were used in the process evaluation, including focus group interviews with service providers, individual interviews and survey data from participants, and fidelity reviews using the validated IPS Fidelity Scale.

resultsThe intervention reached the intended target group. All centers reached fair to good fidelity according to the IPS Fidelity Scale within the project period (range 97-109, SD 8.1) (see Table 5). Certain fidelity items indicated implementation issues related to employer contact, community-based services, and integration with health services. Survey data showed that less than half of the participants regarded their illness as a barrier for participating in IPS and that freedom of disclosure was important. Participant interviews gave further insight into the role of the IPS specialist, emphasizing their availability and consistent job focus.

conclusionsIndications of implementation challenges across centers during the first year suggest special attention should be given to these aspects in an early phase to ensure higher fidelity from the start and thus enhance the effectiveness of IPS. The IPS specialist played an important role for participants and was described as positive, pushing in a positive way, and encouraging. More knowledge on the characteristics of successful IPS specialists could further enhance the effectiveness of the intervention.

trial registrationThe study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov prior to the inclusion period (reg.no: NCT01964092, registered 17/07/2013). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Indexed as

IPSMental health servicesProcess evaluationPsychiatric disordersRecovery

Identifiers

PMID33145494
PMCPMC7599092

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.