Impact of Individual Budgets on Work and Financial Well-Being of Supported Employment Recipients With Serious Mental Illness.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine whether providing recipients of supported employment with individual budgets from which they could purchase employment-related goods and services would improve employment and financial outcomes. METHODS: Sixty study participants were recruited from an individual placement and support (IPS) program and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive IPS services only (N=32) or IPS services with a 12-month $950 flexible fund called a career account (N=28). Participants receiving IPS and a career account met with staff who helped them identify employment goals and create a budget for purchases directly tied to these goals. The primary outcome was competitive employment; secondary outcomes included job tenure, days worked, total earnings, and financial well-being. Outcomes were analyzed by using adjusted generalized linear models (GLMs) with binary logistic, negative binomial, and linear distributions. RESULTS: The proportion of participants who achieved competitive employment was largely similar for those in the career account+IPS group (54%) and in the IPS-only group (47%). However, the GLM analysis revealed that career account+IPS participants had significantly longer job tenure, more total days of employment, and higher total earnings than IPS-only participants. Feelings of financial well-being increased significantly among career account participants, whereas financial well-being declined among control participants. The amount of career account dollars participants spent was positively and significantly associated with longer job tenure, more days employed, and higher total earnings. CONCLUSIONS: Combining flexible funds with IPS-supported employment achieved some superior outcomes compared with IPS only. Further research is needed to assess the longer-term effects of this practice and its cost-effectiveness.

A Mixed-Methods Implementation Evaluation of Virtual Reality Job Interview Training in IPS Supported Employment.

OBJECTIVE: Employment rates among individuals with serious mental illness may be improved by engagement in the individual placement and support (IPS) model of supported employment. Results from a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) indicate that virtual reality job interview training (VR-JIT) improves employment rates among individuals with serious mental illness who have been actively engaged in IPS for at least 90 days. This study reports on an initial implementation evaluation of VR-JIT during the RCT in a community mental health agency. METHODS: A sequential, complementary mixed-methods design included use of qualitative data to improve understanding of quantitative findings. Thirteen IPS staff trained to lead VR-JIT implementation completed VR-JIT acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility surveys. Participants randomly assigned to IPS with VR-JIT completed acceptability (N=42) and usability (N=28) surveys after implementation. The authors also conducted five focus groups with IPS staff (N=11) and VR-JIT recipients (N=13) and semistructured interviews with IPS staff (N=9) and VR-JIT recipients (N=4), followed by an integrated analysis process. RESULTS: Quantitative results suggest that IPS staff found VR-JIT to be highly acceptable, appropriate for integration with IPS, and feasible for delivery. VR-JIT was highly acceptable to recipients. Qualitative results add important context to the quantitative findings, including benefits of VR-JIT for IPS staff as well as adaptations for delivering technology-based interventions to individuals with serious mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: These qualitative and quantitative findings are consistent with each other and were influenced by VR-JIT's adaptability and perceived benefits. Tailoring VR-JIT instruction and delivery to individuals with serious mental illness may help optimize VR-JIT implementation within IPS.

Psychometric properties of the mock interview rating scale for schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses.

Background: Over the past 10 years, job interview training has emerged as an area of study among adults with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses who face significant challenges when navigating job interviews. The field of mental health services research has limited access to assessments of job interview skills with rigorously evaluated psychometric properties. Objective: We sought to evaluate the initial psychometric properties of a measure assessing job interview skills via role-play performance. Methods: As part of a randomized controlled trial, 90 adults with schizophrenia or other serious mental illnesses completed a job interview role-play assessment with eight items (and scored using anchors) called the mock interview rating scale (MIRS). A classical test theory analysis was conducted including confirmatory factor analyses, Rasch model analysis and calibration, and differential item functioning; along with inter-rater, internal consistency, and test-retest reliabilities. Pearson correlations were used to evaluate construct, convergent, divergent, criterion, and predictive validity by correlating the MIRS with demographic, clinical, cognitive, work history measures, and employment outcomes. Results: Our analyses resulted in the removal of a single item (sounding honest) and yielded a unidimensional total score measurement with support for its inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. There was initial support for the construct, convergent, criterion, and predictive validities of the MIRS, as it correlated with measures of social competence, neurocognition, valuing job interview training, and employment outcomes. Meanwhile, the lack of correlations with race, physical health, and substance abuse lent support for divergent validity. Conclusion: This study presents initial evidence that the seven-item version of the MIRS has acceptable psychometric properties supporting its use to assess job interview skills reliably and validly among adults with schizophrenia and other serious mental illnesses. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03049813.

Peer Navigators for the Health Needs of People of Color With Serious Mental Illness.

People with serious mental illness die up to 20 years younger than others in the same age group, with people of color showing even earlier death. The social disadvantages experienced by this group-for example, poverty, criminal legal involvement, and immigration-are further determinants of this disparity. Peer health navigators (PHNs) are people with experiences of recovery who may share a racial-ethnic background, history of poverty, experience with criminal legal systems, or immigration status with current patients and who assist in practical and timely tasks that help people engage with fragmented health systems. This column describes the PHN practice, including the putative components that define it.

Employment as HIV Prevention: An Employment Support Intervention for Adolescent Men Who Have Sex With Men and Adolescent Transgender Women of Color.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to adapt and pilot-test an employment support, primary HIV intervention tailored to the needs of adolescent men who have sex with men and adolescent transgender women of color. SETTING: The intervention was implemented in 2 settings: controlled environment (Phase 1) and real-world community-based (Phase 2) setting in Chicago, IL. METHODS: Eighty-seven adolescent men who have sex with men and adolescent transgender women of color ages 16-24 participated in Work2Prevent , a 4-session employment and HIV prevention intervention, designed to increase job-readiness and reduce HIV risk. Intervention sessions consisted of group activities: educational games, roleplaying/modeling behavior, and self-regulation exercises. Participants were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and 8-month (Phase 1) or 3-month follow-up (Phase 2). RESULTS: Participants evaluated Work2Prevent as feasible and acceptable, rating intervention quality, usefulness, and satisfaction highly. Overall, 59.6% (Phase 1) and 85.0% (Phase 2) participants attended 2 or more sessions. At 8 months, Phase 1 participants reported a mean increase of 11.4 hours worked per week. Phase 2 participants reported a mean increase of 5.2 hours worked per week and an increase in job-seeking self-efficacy. Phase 2 participants also reported a decrease in transactional sex work. CONCLUSION: Work2Prevent is one of the first structural primary HIV interventions to specifically focus on adolescent employment readiness. Findings suggest Work2Prevent is feasible and acceptable, improved adolescent employment outcomes, and reduced HIV risk associated with transactional sex work. Our study underscores the need for alternative pathways, such as addressing socioeconomic determinants, to prevent adolescent HIV infection.

An RCT of Virtual Reality Job Interview Training for Individuals With Serious Mental Illness in IPS Supported Employment.

OBJECTIVE: Virtual Reality Job Interview Training (VR-JIT) is a computerized interview simulator with efficacy at enhancing interview skills and employment outcomes. A randomized controlled trial assessed VR-JIT effectiveness for participants in individual placement and support (IPS), in which approximately 55% of individuals with serious mental illness obtain employment. METHODS: Ninety participants with serious mental illness were randomly assigned to IPS+VR-JIT (N=54) or IPS as usual (N=36), completing pretest-posttest assessments and an employment evaluation at 9 months. Intent-to-treat chi-square analysis, multivariable logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards models, and mixed-effects linear regressions were conducted. Fifty-one percent were IPS nonresponders (i.e., no employment within the first 90 days of IPS). RESULTS: IPS+VR-JIT participants did not have significantly higher employment rates, compared with IPS-as-usual participants (43% versus 28%). IPS nonresponders (N=46) in the IPS+VR-JIT group had greater odds of obtaining employment (odds ratio [OR]=5.82, p=0.014) and shorter time to employment (hazard ratio=2.70, p=0.044) compared with IPS nonresponders in the IPS-as-usual group. Intent-to-treat mixed-effects linear analyses indicated that IPS+VR-JIT, compared with IPS as usual, significantly improved interview skills (p=0.006), interview confidence (p=0.013), and interview anxiety (p=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: VR-JIT's potential benefits (increased employment in a shorter time) appeared to be specific to IPS nonresponders, whereas employment outcomes for recent IPS enrollees were not affected. VR-JIT could be a valuable resource for employment specialists to support IPS nonresponders, because 47% of participants engaged in mock interview training with their specialist. Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness and implementation of VR-JIT among IPS nonresponders.

Cost of mHealth Versus Clinic-Based Care for Serious Mental Illness: Same Effects, Half the Price Tag.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the costs of implementing a smartphone-delivered mobile health (mHealth) intervention (called FOCUS) with the costs of implementing a clinic-based group intervention (Wellness Recovery Action Planning [WRAP]) for serious mental illness. Treatments were delivered in parallel in a randomized controlled trial and produced comparable clinical outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective cost data were collected by using mixed-methods, top-down expenditure analysis with microcosting procedures. Costs were organized by input categories, including personnel, supplies, equipment, overhead, and indirect costs. All estimates are reported in US$. RESULTS: The average annual cost to providers was $78,212 for WRAP and $40,439 for FOCUS. In both groups, labor accounted for the largest cost, followed by indirect costs and overhead costs. When indirect costs were excluded, WRAP cost $520 per client per month, compared with $256 for FOCUS. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth produced the same patient outcomes as clinic-based group treatment at approximately half the cost.

Transdiagnostic Mobile Health: Smartphone Intervention Reduces Depressive Symptoms in People With Mood and Psychotic Disorders.

BACKGROUND: Depression is the most prevalent mental health problem. The need for effective treatments for depression far outstrips the availability of trained mental health professionals. Smartphones and other widely available technologies are increasingly being leveraged to deliver treatments for depression. Whether there are patient characteristics that affect the potency of smartphone interventions for depression is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate whether patient characteristics including clinical diagnosis, depression severity, psychosis status, and current use of antidepressant medications impact the effects of an evidence-based smartphone intervention on depressive symptoms. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a 2-arm randomized controlled trial comparing a multimodal smartphone intervention called FOCUS with a clinic-based intervention. Here, we report on 82 participants assigned to 12 weeks of FOCUS treatment. We conducted assessments of depressive symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory-second edition (BDI-II) at baseline, postintervention (3 months), and follow-up (6 months). We tested for differences in the amount of improvement in BDI-II scores from baseline to posttreatment and 6-month follow-up between each of the following patient subgroups using 2 (group) × 2 (time) mixed effects models: diagnosis (ie, schizophrenia spectrum disorder vs bipolar disorder vs major depressive disorder), depression severity (ie, minimal-mild vs moderate-severe depression), psychosis status (ie, presence vs absence of psychotic symptoms), and antidepressant use (ie, taking antidepressants vs not taking antidepressants). RESULTS: The majority of participants were male (60%, 49/82), African American (65%, 53/82), and middle-aged (mean age 49 years), with a high school education or lower (62%, 51/82). There were no differences in patient demographics across the variables that were used to stratify the analyses. There was a significant group × time interaction for baseline depression severity (F1,76.8=5.26, P=.02 [posttreatment] and F1,77.4=6.56, P=.01 [6-month follow-up]). Participants with moderate or severe depression had significant improvements (t42=3.20, P=.003 [posttreatment] and t42=4.20, P<.001 [6-month follow-up]), but participants with minimal or mild depression did not (t31=0.20, P=.84 [posttreatment] and t30=0.43, P=.67 [6-month follow-up]). There were no significant group × time interactions for diagnosis, psychosis status, or antidepressant medication use. Participants with minimal or mild depression had negligible nonsignificant improvements (<1 point on the BDI-II). Reduction in depression in all other groups was larger (range 1.7-6.5 points on the BDI-II). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that FOCUS can be deployed to treat moderate to severe depressive symptoms among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder, in concert with antidepressant medications or without them, in both people with and without active psychotic symptoms. The study results are consistent with research on transdiagnostic models in psychotherapy and extend our knowledge about the potential of transdiagnostic mobile health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02421965; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02421965 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/76pyDlvAS).

Mobile Health (mHealth) Versus Clinic-Based Group Intervention for People With Serious Mental Illness: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: mHealth approaches that use mobile phones to deliver interventions can help improve access to care for people with serious mental illness. The goal was to evaluate how mHealth performs against more traditional treatment. METHODS: A three-month randomized controlled trial was conducted of a smartphone-delivered intervention (FOCUS) versus a clinic-based group intervention (Wellness Recovery Action Plan [WRAP]). Participants were 163 clients, mostly from racial minority groups and with long-term, serious mental illness (schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, 49%; bipolar disorder, 28%; and major depressive disorder, 23%). Outcomes were engagement throughout the intervention; satisfaction posttreatment (three months); and improvement in clinical symptoms, recovery, and quality of life (assessed at baseline, posttreatment, and six months). RESULTS: Participants assigned to FOCUS were more likely than those assigned to WRAP to commence treatment (90% versus 58%) and remain fully engaged in eight weeks of care (56% versus 40%). Satisfaction ratings were comparably high for both interventions. Participants in both groups improved significantly and did not differ in clinical outcomes, including general psychopathology and depression. Significant improvements in recovery were seen for the WRAP group posttreatment, and significant improvements in recovery and quality of life were seen for the FOCUS group at six months. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions produced significant gains among clients with serious and persistent mental illnesses who were mostly from racial minority groups. The mHealth intervention showed superior patient engagement and produced patient satisfaction and clinical and recovery outcomes that were comparable to those from a widely used clinic-based group intervention for illness management.