Experiences of participating in individual placement and support: a meta‐ethnographic review and synthesis of qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To provide increased understanding about how work applicants, employment specialists, social workers in the welfare service and clinicians in mental healthcare service experience participating in individual placement and support (IPS). METHODS: We searched in several databases and identified 17 studies published from 2007 to 2017 in Sweden, USA, Canada, UK, Australia and Denmark, and applied meta-ethnographic reinterpretation and synthesis. RESULTS: The employment specialists followed the core ideas of IPS, where work is seen as a way to recover. They saw the work applicants' preferences and needs as important for health and well-being, and crucial for successful work rehabilitation. In order to reach these goals, they offered a personal relationship to the work applicants. Work applicants clearly appreciated this personalised recovery-oriented mindset. Furthermore, work applicants needed the employment specialists as culture brokers between health-related questions and the expectations met in the labour market. Social workers lacked resources to such personalised support, and they were under demand of welfare regulations made for a 'train then place' model, which conflicts with the view that work leads to recovery as IPS sees it in their 'place then train' model. The scarce knowledge of the clinicians' experiences in the present study suggests that they are sceptical to work as a way to recover, which is in conflict with IPS. CONCLUSIONS: The work applicants highlighted the significance of the individualised support they received. Social workers and some clinicians found it difficult to provide this important personalised support towards work. Conflicting mindsets between the traditional gradual work rehabilitation paradigm and the IPS approach as a way of recovering might explain these frustrations and distance. Recommendations for practice. An improvement of IPS may depend on more cooperation based on an acceptance of the recovery-oriented mindset, which for some will mean an acceptance of new knowledge.
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 | 0.050 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".