The meaning and experience of stress among supported employment clients with mental health problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many clinicians are concerned that competitive work may cause excessive stress for people with severe mental health problems. Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is acknowledged as the most effective model of supported employment for this population. The manner in which IPS clients define and experience employment-related stress is poorly understood. This qualitative study aims to explore how people with mental health problems receiving IPS services define and experience employment-related stress. We purposively sampled and interviewed 16 clients of an IPS programme, who had been competitively employed for more than 1 month. Data were collected between September 2014 and July 2015 in Montreal, Canada. Transcripts of semi-structured interviews were analysed using grounded theory methodology. IPS clients often defined stress similar to its common understanding: the result of experiencing prolonged or/and cumulative strains, or of an incongruence between efforts and rewards, hopes and reality. Stress experienced in this way could exacerbate psychiatric symptoms, especially depression or psychotic symptoms. However, when maintained at a more manageable level, stress stimulated learning and improved planning of tasks. Participants described different coping mechanisms, such as sharing their experiences and difficulties with others, focusing on problem resolution and avoidance. The first two of these helped IPS clients remain at work and bolstered their confidence. Work-related stress has potentially positive as well as negative consequences for IPS clients. In order to maximise the potential beneficial effects of stress, employment specialists can help clients anticipate potential stressors and plan how they might cope with them. Further research on the most effective ways of helping clients cope with stress is needed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".