↓ Skip to main content

‘I’m proud of how far I’ve come. I’m just ready to work’: mental health recovery narratives within the context of Australia’s Disability Employment Services

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
‘I’m proud of how far I’ve come. I’m just ready to work’: mental health recovery narratives within the context of Australia’s Disability Employment Services
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2020
DOI 10.1186/s12889-020-8452-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandra Devine, Cathy Vaughan, Anne Kavanagh, Helen Dickinson, Sean Byars, Stefanie Dimov, Bill Gye, Lisa Brophy

Abstract

Employment is recognised as facilitating the personal and clinical recovery of people with psychosocial disability. Yet this group continue to experience considerable barriers to work, and, constitute a significant proportion of individuals engaged with Disability Employment Services (DES). Recognition of the role of recovery-oriented practice within DES remains limited, despite these approaches being widely promoted as best-practice within the field of mental health. The Improving Disability Employment Study (IDES) aims to gather evidence on factors influencing employment outcomes for Australians with disability. Descriptive analysis and linear regression of IDES survey data from 369 DES participants, alongside narrative analysis of data collected through 56 in-depth interviews with 30 DES participants with psychosocial disability, allowed us to explore factors influencing mental health, well-being and personal recovery within the context of DES. Psychosocial disability was reported as the main disability by 48% of IDES respondents. These individuals had significantly lower scores on measures of mental health and well-being (44.9, 48.4 respectively, p ≤ 0.01), compared with respondents with other disability types (52.2, 54.3 p ≤ 0.01). Within this group, individuals currently employed had higher mental health and well-being scores than those not employed (47.5 vs 36.9, 55.5 vs 45.4 respectively, p ≤ 0.01). Building on these findings, our qualitative analysis identified five personal recovery narratives: 1) Recovery in spite of DES; 2) DES as a key actor in recovery; 3) DES playing a supporting role in fluctuating journeys of recovery; 4) Recovery undermined by DES; and, 5) Just surviving regardless of DES. Narratives were strongly influenced by participants' mental health and employment status, alongside the relationship with their DES worker, and, participants' perspectives on the effectiveness of services provided. These findings re-iterate the importance of work in supporting the mental health and well-being of people with psychosocial disability. Alongside access to secure and meaningful work, personal recovery was facilitated within the context of DES when frontline workers utilised approaches that align with recovery-orientated practices. However, these approaches were not consistently applied. Given the number of people with psychosocial disability moving through DES, encouraging greater consideration of recovery-oriented practice within DES and investment in building the capacity of frontline staff to utilise such practice is warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 38 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 14%
Psychology 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 40 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 September 2021.
All research outputs
#5,637,831
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#5,490
of 15,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,809
of 365,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#117
of 338 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 365,756 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 338 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.