0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

1
Articles   |    
Qualitative Analysis of Barriers to Implementation of Supported Employment in the Department of Veterans Affairs
Terri K. Pogoda, Ph.D.; Irene E. Cramer, Ph.D., M.S.S.A.; Robert A. Rosenheck, M.D.; Sandra G. Resnick, Ph.D.
Psychiatric Services 2011; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.62.11.1289
View Author and Article Information
Dr. Pogoda and Dr. Cramer are affiliated with the Center for Organization, Leadership and Management Research, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Boston Healthcare System, 150 S. Huntington Ave., 152M, Boston, MA 02130 (e-mail: terri.pogoda@va.gov). They are also with the Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston.
Dr. Rosenheck and Dr. Resnick are with the Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Veterans Integrated Service Network 1, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut, and the Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Some of the findings were presented at the 22nd annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science, May 27–30, 2010, Boston.

Copyright © 2011 by the American Psychiatric Association.

Objective:  The aim of this qualitative study was to document perceived barriers to supported employment implementation as described by Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees.

Methods:  Interviews were conducted over two years at six VA medical centers involved in implementing supported employment, an evidence-based practice for helping people with serious mental illness obtain competitive employment. Eighty-four unique semistructured interviews focusing on program development were conducted at the two time points with 110 VA leaders, clinicians, and supported employment staff. A qualitative analysis was performed by using a hybrid of a priori coding categories (focused on organizational transformation) and a data-driven approach to examining perceived barriers to supported employment implementation.

Results:  Perceived barriers to supported employment implementation were most prominent during the first year of interviews. VA employees across the six sites reported challenges related to employees having paternalistic attitudes about individuals with serious mental illness and being uninformed about the supported employment program. They also reported a lack of organizational structures and leadership to educate providers, facilitate program integration with other teams, and promote the program's value. By the second year, most sites had addressed these challenges.

Conclusions:  Paternalistic-uninformed concerns about the ability of persons with serious mental illness to be gainfully employed and a lack of organizational structures and leadership to promote and integrate the supported employment program were common implementation barriers. During implementation, organizations would likely benefit from a formalized educational process of teams involved in the care of supported employment clients and from leadership buy-in to the program and promotion of its significance. (Psychiatric Services 62:1289–1295, 2011)

Abstract Teaser
Figures in this Article

The President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (1) recommended that mental health systems transform to become more patient centered and recovery oriented. The commission defined recovery as “the process in which people are able to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities.” As part of the recovery model, the commission envisioned a transformed system in which people with serious mental illness could work if they wanted to, receive vocational rehabilitation support, and seek employment without fear of prejudice or discrimination. The commission identified supported employment, an evidence-based practice for helping clients obtain community-based competitive employment, as a means to achieve these ends (2,3).

Supported employment varies from traditional Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensated work therapy (CWT) vocational rehabilitation programs in which patients are hired by the VA for noncompetitive work. Patients in conventional CWT can be placed in sheltered workshops supervised by vocational rehabilitation staff or in transitional work in which the VA secures work contracts and then places clients in available positions while serving as an intermediary between the employer and the patient (4,5). Instead, supported employment's principles include clients' self-determination of their eligibility to work in a competitive setting, a rapid search for employment fitting a client's preferences, integration between supported employment and mental health teams, ongoing and time-unlimited support from the vocational and treatment teams, and no exclusion from participating in supported employment services (6,7). Guidelines, recommendations, and toolkits for implementing and sustaining evidence-based practices (8,9) for individuals with serious mental illness, such as supported employment (3), are well established. In randomized studies, adherence to supported employment principles was associated with higher employment rates compared with other vocational programs (1012).

Adopting, implementing, and ultimately sustaining a new model of vocational rehabilitation and recovery can be impeded by a number of individual and organizational factors. For example, some believe that individuals with serious mental illness cannot live productive lives, are dangerous, and can perform only low-level jobs (13). Programs to help people with serious mental illness can be stigmatizing to participants when employees hold onto these negative perceptions rather than working with accurate and specific knowledge of program and client activities (14,15). Providers or leaders in mental health organizations may resist recovery efforts (16) for reasons that include paternalistic needs to protect patients whom they view as disabled, (17,18), misunderstandings about recovery, doubts about whether patients can be successful, protection of limited financial and human resources, challenges to the status quo of management and treatment, and potential provider liability (19).

In 2004 the VA began to disseminate and implement supported employment nationally, with additional resources at 21 selected sites (5,20), which included funding for staff and resources, on-site technical assistance, and biannual review of program fidelity to supported employment principles. Concurrently, our research team conducted interviews with VA employees to better understand the implementation process. Our research focused on identifying successes and challenges that arose out of introducing an innovation that required organizational transformation to be successful. Specifically, supported employment is a recovery program that is a departure from traditional vocational services for individuals with serious mental illness (21).

We used the organizational transformation model (22) as a framework through which to examine how the supported employment model was introduced and implemented at the sites. This model identifies five key drivers of change that interact to help organizations develop sustained, organizationwide patient care improvements: impetus to change, leadership commitment, improvement initiatives, alignment of organizational goals and resources, and integration across intraorganizational boundaries. Greater evidence of these drivers in health care systems is associated with better transformation (22). In this study we focused on perceived barriers to supported employment implementation as described by VA medical center (VAMC) employees and described them in the context of the organizational transformation model by identifying organizational characteristics that existed or changed during implementation.

+

Site and respondent selection

In February 2006 the national implementation coordinating center selected six sites to be interviewed among the 21 VAMCs that were receiving additional resources. Two sites each were on the East and West coasts, one was in the South, and one was in the Midwest. At the time of selection, two sites each were among the top and bottom performers on a biannual review of fidelity to supported employment principles, and two were the first and last to begin implementation. The lead interviewers were blind to site status and selection criteria during the study's data collection and analysis phases. Interviews for year 1 began in July 2006 and were repeated approximately one year later.

We targeted interviews to VAMC senior and middle leadership, mental health leaders and clinicians, and supported employment program staff. We e-mailed potential interviewees an invitation to participate and scheduled individual interviews after recipients agreed. After complete description of the study, informed consent was obtained from all participants. Institutional review boards from all participating sites approved this research. In year 1, a total of 74 of 87 (85%) employees who were contacted participated; in year 2, 63 of 104 (61%) participated. Overall, there were 84 unique respondents. Across both years, proportionally more supported employment staff who were invited to be interviewed (93%) participated compared with mental health employees (71%) and VAMC leadership (69%) (χ2=6.63, df=2, p<.04; N=110). We found this difference in response to be acceptable given the study's focus on supported employment program implementation.

+

Data collection

We used a semistructured interview guide that had an organizational focus on development of the supported employment program and facilitators and barriers to implementation. [The guide is available in an online supplement at ps.psychiatryonline.org.] The second author primarily conducted the interviews, and the first author took notes and asked follow-up questions as needed. With participant permission, all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed.

+

Data analysis

Interview transcripts were analyzed by using NVivo 2.0 and Microsoft Word XP software programs that allow for qualitative data analysis and categorization. Both a priori (deductive) (23) and data-driven (inductive) (24)approaches to thematic analysis (25) were employed. Identification of coding categories was guided primarily by a focus on organizational transformation and the associated successes of and barriers to supported employment program implementation. Additional themes that emerged from the data were related to “paternalism” and “being uninformed.” The first two authors independently coded ten transcripts and cross-checked their results to ensure consistency. Discussion of discrepancies led to consensus. The first two authors then independently coded the remaining transcripts before discussing their findings. Transcripts were rereviewed to ensure that themes were fully captured.

There was strong agreement in identifying organizational strengths, changes, barriers, and facilitators during implementation. The first two authors developed tables that reflected the data's themes and associated evidence by site before determining that there were nine relevant barrier-related categories. The nine barriers to supported employment implementation were classified into paternalistic-uninformed and organizational challenges (Table 1).

+

Paternalistic-uninformed

+

Employment is unnecessary for clients receiving benefits.

Some interviewees reported that staff did not understand why clients with serious mental illness would need additional income and instead believed that employment services should be aimed at those deemed more capable of work and who were not already receiving benefits. Unaware that clients of the supported employment program could receive benefits when working, some providers were hesitant to make referrals for fear that patients would lose necessary financial support. Consultation with benefits specialists was helpful for educating providers.

+

Individuals with serious mental illness are fragile and incapable of working.

There were mixed beliefs about clients' abilities to function in a work setting, and therefore the foundation of the supported employment model and its goals were sometimes questioned. Many sites struggled with mental health providers' refusal to refer patients to the supported employment program. Because providers work with patients in time-limited office visits, some providers based their judgment of patients' ability to work on limited knowledge. Some primary care and mental health providers were protective of their patients and did not believe they were ready to participate in vocational services.

Marketing the program to providers and discussing success stories helped counter negative beliefs. Focusing on clients' behaviors, abilities, and functional limitations rather than on pathology was productive when talking with providers or potential employers.

+

Some individuals should be excluded from a full range of services because of psychiatric symptoms or substance use or abuse.

A core supported employment principle is that clients are eligible for program services regardless of active substance use or abuse or psychiatric symptoms. Some clinicians and employment specialists were doubtful of clients' ability to work when they were actively symptomatic; there was more compassion toward psychiatric illness than toward substance use and abuse. Some clinicians saw substance abuse as a barrier to referring a client to supported employment and would not make a referral until the client completed a substance abuse treatment program and demonstrated sobriety.

Employment specialists voiced “greater-good” reasons to scale back job development efforts when clients were actively abusing substances. Concerns were related to safety and liability and protection of the reputation of the supported employment program. Providing full supported employment services was the expectation; however, informally and at their discretion, some employment specialists reduced job development efforts for clients who were actively symptomatic or abusing substances.

+

Some providers were oriented to the medical model.

Interviewees noted that providers using 15-minute office visits typically focused on medication and symptom management; employment was not considered part of the treatment plan. At one site, employment specialists met clients in waiting rooms and offered them brochures about supported employment. Clients took the brochures to their psychiatrist, so that it was clear that interest was coming from them.

+

Organizational barriers

+

Lack of education about the model.

One barrier to implementation, which reflected weak organizational alignment, was an organizationwide lack of knowledge about the supported employment model. Middle- and senior leadership at some sites were proactive and effective in introducing the supported employment program to mental health treatment teams, either by itself or in the context of larger recovery efforts. However, implementation sometimes preceded centerwide informational sessions about supported employment and the recovery model, thereby giving the program limited visibility or credibility in its early stages. At some sites, when clinicians were not given follow-up educational booster sessions about the program, they sometimes forgot its principles. At one site there was no organizationwide education, and the piecemeal education efforts by supported employment staff resulted in clinicians' continued adherence to traditional practices (for example, not referring patients for vocational rehabilitation if patients were not sober). Some believed that supported employment was a form of case management, and others did not understand the recovery model. Without knowledge of the evidence base or the spread of success stories, clinicians did not see the benefits of making referrals to the program.

+

Inadequate involvement of leadership.

The directive to implement supported employment services came from the highest levels of national VA leadership. However, the way it was implemented locally varied. Some senior leadership focused on other priorities and relied on middle- and lower-level leaders to manage and promote the program, which reflected the limited engagement of senior leadership. By year 2, five of the six sites reported moderate to strong support from local senior leadership, but one site continued to struggle. The supported employment manager did not have previous program training. Feeling that there was minimal guidance for program start-up, he had to self-learn its principles and consult with other supported employment programs. The manager noted that leadership was aware of the program, but the manager wanted leaders to be involved more in obtaining equipment for program staff and clients and in facilitating integration and colocation of the program with the mental health service. Senior and middle leadership at this VAMC were in transition during supported employment implementation, which likely impeded the program's ability to gain attention and become fully integrated into operations.

Two sites had very strong supported employment managers and mental health leaders who embraced recovery and supported employment principles and encouraged team efforts. Some leaders had already been practicing elements of the supported employment model before it was formally implemented locally. One psychologist described how he had become “infected” with the recovery model and realized that the pessimistic messages that he and other mental health providers were giving patients previously were wrong. In turn, he began conducting his own presentations about recovery, and he proudly stated, “I got infected with the religion of recovery before I saw successes. … I infected my boss and staff, and I want to infect the layers in between.”

+

Poor integration with the mental health team.

Many supported employment programs had difficulty developing linkages with providers during initial implementation. Poor integration was attributed to such logistical issues as restricted physical space for team meetings, high caseloads, limited time for meetings and informal discussion, and confusion among clinicians and employment specialists about roles. For some mental health providers, without the structure and processes of integration, it was difficult to understand the value of the supported employment program. This sometimes led to tension when employment specialists wanted to be involved in discussions of patient treatment plans.

+

Perceived as a passing trend.

Noting the history of other failed vocational programs within local VAMCs, interviewees reported that skepticism about the viability of the supported employment program decreased buy-in. Some employees believed that enthusiasm for the program would eventually decline, and they needed to be certain of VA Central Office's commitment to its continued funding.

+

Low medical center priority.

On the basis of competing priorities to allocate resources to care related to more general medical conditions, some interviewees were concerned about beliefs that supported employment was not integral to treatment. Several noted that budget restrictions usually resulted in prioritization of medically oriented services.

On the basis of perspectives from frontline staff to senior leadership, we identified nine barriers to supported employment implementation related to paternalism or being uninformed and organizational challenges and considered them in the context of organizational transformation. Regardless of previous organizational experience with vocational programs or degree of preparation for implementing recovery-based programs, individuals at each of the sites expressed or encountered similar negative beliefs about or experiences with implementing the supported employment program during the early phases.

+

Paternalistic-uninformed

Barriers classified as paternalistic-uninformed tended to be nonsystemic, and interventions to overcome these barriers could have included targeted education during early implementation. Some sites successfully countered such issues by having counselors discuss the impact of earned income on existing benefits and having credible stakeholders continually spread employment success stories that refuted perceptions of patient disability. Some providers who were trained in the medical model, which focuses on patient pathology and limitations rather than on personal strengths (18,26), considered themselves “converts” to the supported employment model after seeing positive results. Others' resistance to fully accepting it may have been a natural consequence of introducing a framework that deviated from traditional care. Finally, better team oversight may have prevented limiting supported employment services to clients who were actively drinking or using illegal substances. Some employment specialists noted that consequences for using and abusing substances (for example, getting fired) had served as valuable learning experiences and motivators for clients to regulate or discontinue their use. The barriers classified as paternalistic-uninformed represent the need for supported employment and mental health team integration and engagement in education and problem solving.

+

Organizational barriers and organizational transformation

The organizational barriers identified in this study each touched on an aspect of the organizational transformation model, but deficits in leadership support and integration across teams were the most pronounced. All study sites were mandated to implement supported employment (key driver: impetus to transform), but the way in which this was actualized varied across VAMCs. Having knowledgeable, engaged, and committed leadership at all levels (27) was perceived to be important to successful implementation. At the level of the supported employment team, these leaders practiced the ideals of the program, which included respecting the value and ability of clients to be self-determined and gainfully employed, hiring employment specialists who were educated both formally and on the job, facilitating team cohesion, and employing effective hands-on management (28). Middle- and senior-level leaders demonstrated support by introducing supported employment in the context of other recovery programs (key driver: alignment) and educating other providers about its successes. Engaging leadership early and relying on leadership with strong experience were strong contributors to successful program implementation. A top-down approach that reinforced the supported employment initiative and ensured that structures were in place to promote the integration of the supported employment team with other programs (4,29) facilitated education and marketing of the program. Such practices served to bring more visibility to supported employment, and these efforts may have helped to protect against or change negative and misinformed perceptions of the program and its clients (8,30,31).

The site that had foundered most in its implementation did not have a strong history of vocational rehabilitation or leadership support. The program lacked integration and was physically and conceptually isolated from the mental health teams; it also underwent staff turnover and experienced middle- and senior-leadership changes in the VAMC. In addition, the program manager was new to the principles of supported employment, team members were more experienced in traditional CWT programs, and other mental health providers did not understand the program's evidence base. Because of this “perfect storm” of challenges, the program may have benefited from intensive intervention and education at multiple levels.

+

Limitations

Although respondents ranging from leadership to frontline staff reported experiencing or hearing negative attitudes about the supported employment program or the seriously mentally ill population, the semistructured interviews did not specifically include any questions pertaining to paternalism or being uninformed. We identified these themes during the qualitative analysis. However, we believe that the information we heard was reliable and substantial and that any targeted questions would have yielded similar—and perhaps more elaborate—information. Because our research model did not include data collection from clients of supported employment programs, we do not know whether our findings were associated with clients' perceptions of bias or with lower-quality services. Future studies would benefit from concurrent interviews with supported employment staff and their clients.

+

Conclusions

Nonsystemic paternalistic-uninformed concerns about the ability of individuals with serious mental illness to be gainfully employed and a lack of structure and leadership to educate providers and facilitate team integration are common challenges to transforming organizations during implementation of supported employment. During implementation, organizations would likely benefit from leadership buy-in and from promotion of these programs and education of mental health teams by knowledgeable and influential stakeholders. Such education should address negative beliefs, focus on the evidence base, and continuously reinforce the technical aspects and merits of supported employment.

This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development Health Services Research and Development grant MNT 05-098. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government.

The authors report no competing interests.

 Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Pub no SMA-03-3832 .  Rockville, Md,  Department of Health and Human Services, President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003
 
Becker  DR;  Drake  RE:  A Working Life for People With Severe Mental Illness .  New York,  Oxford University Press, 2003
 
Bond  GR;  Becker  DR;  Drake  RE  et al:  Implementing supported employment as an evidence-based practice.  Psychiatric Services 52:313–322, 2001
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Resnick  SG;  Rosenheck  RA;  Drebing  CE:  What makes vocational rehabilitation effective? Program characteristics versus employment outcomes nationally in VA.  Psychological Services 3:239–248, 2006
[CrossRef]
 
Resnick  SG;  Rosenheck  RA:  Dissemination of supported employment in Department of Veterans Affairs.  Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 44:867–878, 2007
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bond  GR;  Becker  DR;  Drake  RE  et al:  A fidelity scale for the Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment.  Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 40:265–284, 1997
 
Becker  DR;  Drake  RE:  Supported Employment for People With Severe Mental Illness: A Guideline Developed for the Behavioral Health Recovery Management Project .  Peoria, Ill,  Fayette Companies, 2004. Available at www.bhrm.org/guidelines/Supported%20Employment%20for%20People%20with%20Severe%20Mental%20Illness.pdf
 
Corrigan  PW;  River  LP;  Lundin  RK  et al:  Three strategies for changing attributions about severe mental illness.  Schizophrenia Bulletin 27:187–195, 2001
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Torrey  WC;  Drake  RE;  Dixon  L  et al:  Implementing evidence-based practices for persons with severe mental illnesses.  Psychiatric Services 52:45–50, 2001
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bond  GR;  Drake  RE;  Becker  DR:  An update on randomized controlled trials of evidence-based supported employment.  Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 31:280–290, 2008
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Cook  JA;  Leff  HS;  Blyler  CR  et al:  Results of a multisite randomized trial of supported employment interventions for individuals with severe mental illness.  Archives of General Psychiatry 62:505–512, 2005
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Lehman  AF;  Goldberg  R;  Dixon  LB  et al:  Improving employment outcomes for persons with severe mental illnesses.  Archives of General Psychiatry 59:165–172, 2002
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Watson  AC;  Corrigan  PW:  The Impact of Stigma on Service Access and Participation: A Guideline Developed for the Behavioral Health Recovery Management Project .  Peoria, Ill,  Fayette Companies, 2001. Available at www.bhrm.org/guidelines/stigma.pdf
 
Verhaeghe  M;  Bracke  P:  Organizational and individual level determinants of stigmatization in mental health services.  Community Mental Health Journal 43:375–400, 2007
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Devers  CE;  Dewett  T;  Mishina  Y  et al:  A general theory of organizational stigma.  Organization Science 20:154–171, 2009
[CrossRef]
 
Ashcraft  L;  Anthony  WA:  Addressing resistance to recovery.  Behavioral Healthcare 28(3):10,12, 2008
 
Munetz  MR;  Frese  FJ  3rd:  Getting ready for recovery: reconciling mandatory treatment with the recovery vision.  Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 25:35–42, 2001
[PubMed]
 
Frese  FJ  3rd;  Stanley  J;  Kress  K  et al:  Integrating evidence-based practices and the recovery model.  Psychiatric Services 52:1462–1468, 2001
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Davidson  L;  O'Connell  M;  Tondora  J  et al:  The top ten concerns about recovery encountered in mental health system transformation.  Psychiatric Services 57:640–645, 2006
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Resnick  SG;  Rosenheck  RA:  Scaling up the dissemination of evidence-based mental health practice to large systems and long-term time frames.  Psychiatric Services 60:682–685, 2009
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Resnick  SG;  Rosenheck  RA:  Posttraumatic stress disorder and employment in veterans participating in Veterans Health Administration Compensated Work Therapy.  Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 45:427–435, 2008
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Lukas  CV;  Holmes  SK;  Cohen  AB  et al:  Transformational change in health care systems: an organizational model.  Health Care Management Review 32:309–320, 2007
[PubMed]
 
Boyatzis  R:  Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development .  Thousand Oaks, Calif,  Sage, 1998
 
Crabtree  B;  Miller  W:  A template approach to text analysis: developing and using codebooks; in Doing Qualitative Research . Edited by Crabtree  B;  Miller  W.  Newbury Park, Calif,  Sage, 1999
 
Fereday  J;  Muir-Cochrane  E:  Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.  International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5:80–92, 2006
 
Engel  GL:  The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine.  Science 196:129–136, 1977
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bloch  RM;  Saeed  SA;  Rivard  JC  et al:  Lessons learned in implementing evidence-based practices: implications for psychiatric administrators.  Psychiatric Quarterly 77:309–318, 2006
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Marshall  T;  Rapp  CA;  Becker  DR  et al:  Key factors for implementing supported employment.  Psychiatric Services 59:886–892, 2008
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Mueser  KT;  Clark  RE;  Haines  M  et al:  The Hartford study of supported employment for persons with severe mental illness.  Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72:479–490, 2004
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Corrigan  PW;  Penn  DL:  Lessons from social psychology on discrediting psychiatric stigma.  American Psychologist 54:765–776, 1999
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Byrne  P:  Stigma of mental illness and ways of diminishing it.  Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 6:65–72, 2000
[CrossRef]
 
References Container
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
Table 1

Barriers to implementation of supported employment programs identified at six Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers

Table 1 

Barriers to implementation of supported employment programs identified at six Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers

+

References

 Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Pub no SMA-03-3832 .  Rockville, Md,  Department of Health and Human Services, President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003
 
Becker  DR;  Drake  RE:  A Working Life for People With Severe Mental Illness .  New York,  Oxford University Press, 2003
 
Bond  GR;  Becker  DR;  Drake  RE  et al:  Implementing supported employment as an evidence-based practice.  Psychiatric Services 52:313–322, 2001
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Resnick  SG;  Rosenheck  RA;  Drebing  CE:  What makes vocational rehabilitation effective? Program characteristics versus employment outcomes nationally in VA.  Psychological Services 3:239–248, 2006
[CrossRef]
 
Resnick  SG;  Rosenheck  RA:  Dissemination of supported employment in Department of Veterans Affairs.  Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 44:867–878, 2007
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bond  GR;  Becker  DR;  Drake  RE  et al:  A fidelity scale for the Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment.  Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 40:265–284, 1997
 
Becker  DR;  Drake  RE:  Supported Employment for People With Severe Mental Illness: A Guideline Developed for the Behavioral Health Recovery Management Project .  Peoria, Ill,  Fayette Companies, 2004. Available at www.bhrm.org/guidelines/Supported%20Employment%20for%20People%20with%20Severe%20Mental%20Illness.pdf
 
Corrigan  PW;  River  LP;  Lundin  RK  et al:  Three strategies for changing attributions about severe mental illness.  Schizophrenia Bulletin 27:187–195, 2001
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Torrey  WC;  Drake  RE;  Dixon  L  et al:  Implementing evidence-based practices for persons with severe mental illnesses.  Psychiatric Services 52:45–50, 2001
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bond  GR;  Drake  RE;  Becker  DR:  An update on randomized controlled trials of evidence-based supported employment.  Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 31:280–290, 2008
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Cook  JA;  Leff  HS;  Blyler  CR  et al:  Results of a multisite randomized trial of supported employment interventions for individuals with severe mental illness.  Archives of General Psychiatry 62:505–512, 2005
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Lehman  AF;  Goldberg  R;  Dixon  LB  et al:  Improving employment outcomes for persons with severe mental illnesses.  Archives of General Psychiatry 59:165–172, 2002
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Watson  AC;  Corrigan  PW:  The Impact of Stigma on Service Access and Participation: A Guideline Developed for the Behavioral Health Recovery Management Project .  Peoria, Ill,  Fayette Companies, 2001. Available at www.bhrm.org/guidelines/stigma.pdf
 
Verhaeghe  M;  Bracke  P:  Organizational and individual level determinants of stigmatization in mental health services.  Community Mental Health Journal 43:375–400, 2007
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Devers  CE;  Dewett  T;  Mishina  Y  et al:  A general theory of organizational stigma.  Organization Science 20:154–171, 2009
[CrossRef]
 
Ashcraft  L;  Anthony  WA:  Addressing resistance to recovery.  Behavioral Healthcare 28(3):10,12, 2008
 
Munetz  MR;  Frese  FJ  3rd:  Getting ready for recovery: reconciling mandatory treatment with the recovery vision.  Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 25:35–42, 2001
[PubMed]
 
Frese  FJ  3rd;  Stanley  J;  Kress  K  et al:  Integrating evidence-based practices and the recovery model.  Psychiatric Services 52:1462–1468, 2001
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Davidson  L;  O'Connell  M;  Tondora  J  et al:  The top ten concerns about recovery encountered in mental health system transformation.  Psychiatric Services 57:640–645, 2006
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Resnick  SG;  Rosenheck  RA:  Scaling up the dissemination of evidence-based mental health practice to large systems and long-term time frames.  Psychiatric Services 60:682–685, 2009
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Resnick  SG;  Rosenheck  RA:  Posttraumatic stress disorder and employment in veterans participating in Veterans Health Administration Compensated Work Therapy.  Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 45:427–435, 2008
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Lukas  CV;  Holmes  SK;  Cohen  AB  et al:  Transformational change in health care systems: an organizational model.  Health Care Management Review 32:309–320, 2007
[PubMed]
 
Boyatzis  R:  Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development .  Thousand Oaks, Calif,  Sage, 1998
 
Crabtree  B;  Miller  W:  A template approach to text analysis: developing and using codebooks; in Doing Qualitative Research . Edited by Crabtree  B;  Miller  W.  Newbury Park, Calif,  Sage, 1999
 
Fereday  J;  Muir-Cochrane  E:  Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.  International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5:80–92, 2006
 
Engel  GL:  The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine.  Science 196:129–136, 1977
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Bloch  RM;  Saeed  SA;  Rivard  JC  et al:  Lessons learned in implementing evidence-based practices: implications for psychiatric administrators.  Psychiatric Quarterly 77:309–318, 2006
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Marshall  T;  Rapp  CA;  Becker  DR  et al:  Key factors for implementing supported employment.  Psychiatric Services 59:886–892, 2008
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Mueser  KT;  Clark  RE;  Haines  M  et al:  The Hartford study of supported employment for persons with severe mental illness.  Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 72:479–490, 2004
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Corrigan  PW;  Penn  DL:  Lessons from social psychology on discrediting psychiatric stigma.  American Psychologist 54:765–776, 1999
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Byrne  P:  Stigma of mental illness and ways of diminishing it.  Advances in Psychiatric Treatment 6:65–72, 2000
[CrossRef]
 
References Container
+
+

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Related Content
Articles
Books
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 22.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 22.  >
Textbook of Traumatic Brain Injury, 2nd Edition > Chapter 32.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Substance Abuse Treatment, 4th Edition > Chapter 33.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 20.  >
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News
PubMed Articles