↓ Skip to main content

Experiences with the implementation of Individual Placement and Support for people with severe mental illness: a qualitative study among stakeholders

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Experiences with the implementation of Individual Placement and Support for people with severe mental illness: a qualitative study among stakeholders
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1729-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miljana Vukadin, Frederieke G. Schaafsma, Marjan J. Westerman, Harry W. C. Michon, Johannes R. Anema

Abstract

Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an evidence-based approach to help people with severe mental illness achieve competitive employment. This article provides insight into an organizational and a financial implementation strategy for IPS in the Netherlands by exploring the perceived facilitators and barriers among participating stakeholders. The goal of this multifaceted strategy was to improve IPS implementation by improving the collaboration between all organizations involved, and realising secured IPS funding with a 'pay for performance' element. A qualitative, explorative study among practitioners (n = 8) and decision makers (n = 7) in mental health care and vocational rehabilitation was performed using semi-structured interviews to collect rich information about the possible facilitators and barriers with regard to the organizational and financial implementation strategy for IPS. Important perceived facilitators were the key principles of the IPS model, regular meetings of stakeholders in mental health care and vocational rehabilitation, stakeholders' experienced ownership of IPS and collaboration, the mandate and influence of the decision makers involved and secured IPS funding. Important perceived barriers included the experienced rigidity of the IPS model fidelity scale and lack of independent fidelity reviewers, the temporary and fragmented character of the secured funding, lack of communication between decision makers and practitioners and negative attitudes and beliefs among mental health clinicians. Changes in legislation were experienced as a facilitator as well as a barrier. The results of this study suggest that the collaboration and IPS funding were experienced as improved by applying an organizational and a financial implementation strategy. However, considerable effort is still necessary to overcome the remaining barriers identified and to make the implementation of IPS a success in practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 34 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 35 28%
Psychology 17 14%
Social Sciences 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 6%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 31 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,270,606
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#853
of 5,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,608
of 345,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#27
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,510 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.