Changes in the nature and intensity of stress following employment among people with severe mental illness receiving individual placement and support services: an exploratory qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most people with severe mental illness (SMI) want to work. Individual placement and support (IPS) programs have proven effective in helping them obtain and keep competitive jobs. Yet, practitioners often fear that competitive jobs might be too stressful. AIMS: To explore how the nature and intensity of stress experienced by IPS clients changed after the transition from looking for work to being employed. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews explored the experiences of 16 clients of an IPS program who had recently been competitively employed. Grounded theory was used to structure the analysis. RESULTS: Most participants reported that their stress level decreased once they found work. Stress following work was associated with fear of failure, pressure to perform and uncertainty. The support that people perceived in their return-to-work project, and where they were on their recovery journey, modulated their perception of stress. Many cited IPS as a source of support. CONCLUSIONS: Competitive work changed the nature of stress and was mostly associated with a decrease in stress level. Adjunctive interventions aiming to buffer self-stigma or help participants use more adaptive coping mechanisms may merit investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".