A meta‐regression of the impact of policy on the efficacy of individual placement and support.
Saved in:
| Title: | A meta‐regression of the impact of policy on the efficacy of individual placement and support. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Brinchmann, B. (AUTHOR), Widding‐Havneraas, T. (AUTHOR), Modini, M. (AUTHOR), Rinaldi, M. (AUTHOR), Moe, C. F. (AUTHOR), McDaid, D. (AUTHOR), Park, A‐L. (AUTHOR), Killackey, E. (AUTHOR), Harvey, S. B. (AUTHOR), Mykletun, A. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. Mar2020, Vol. 141 Issue 3, p206-220. 15p. 2 Diagrams, 1 Chart, 1 Graph. |
| Subjects: | Vocational rehabilitation, Unemployment statistics, Temporary employment, Meta-analysis |
| Abstract: | Objective: Individual placement and support (IPS) has shown consistently better outcomes on competitive employment for patients with severe mental illness than traditional vocational rehabilitation. The evidence for efficacy originates from few countries, and generalization to different countries has been questioned. This has delayed implementation of IPS and led to requests for country‐specific RCTs. This meta‐analysis examines if evidence for IPS efficacy can be generalized between rather different countries. Methods: A systematic search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to identify RCTs. Overall efficacy was established by meta‐analysis. The generalizability of IPS efficacy between countries was analysed by random‐effects meta‐regression, employing country‐ and date‐specific contextual data obtained from the OECD and the World Bank. Results: The systematic review identified 27 RCTs. Employment rates are more than doubled in IPS compared with standard vocational rehabilitation (RR 2.07 95% CI 1.82–2.35). The efficacy of IPS was marginally moderated by strong legal protection against dismissals. It was not moderated by regulation of temporary employment, generosity of disability benefits, type of integration policies, GDP, unemployment rate or employment rate for those with low education. Conclusions: The evidence for efficacy of IPS is very strong. The efficacy of IPS can be generalized between countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objective: Individual placement and support (IPS) has shown consistently better outcomes on competitive employment for patients with severe mental illness than traditional vocational rehabilitation. The evidence for efficacy originates from few countries, and generalization to different countries has been questioned. This has delayed implementation of IPS and led to requests for country‐specific RCTs. This meta‐analysis examines if evidence for IPS efficacy can be generalized between rather different countries. Methods: A systematic search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to identify RCTs. Overall efficacy was established by meta‐analysis. The generalizability of IPS efficacy between countries was analysed by random‐effects meta‐regression, employing country‐ and date‐specific contextual data obtained from the OECD and the World Bank. Results: The systematic review identified 27 RCTs. Employment rates are more than doubled in IPS compared with standard vocational rehabilitation (RR 2.07 95% CI 1.82–2.35). The efficacy of IPS was marginally moderated by strong legal protection against dismissals. It was not moderated by regulation of temporary employment, generosity of disability benefits, type of integration policies, GDP, unemployment rate or employment rate for those with low education. Conclusions: The evidence for efficacy of IPS is very strong. The efficacy of IPS can be generalized between countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0001690X |
| DOI: | 10.1111/acps.13129 |
