Preferences for family involvement among veterans in treatment for schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Examine preferences for family involvement in psychiatric care in a large, representative sample of veterans in treatment for schizophrenia. METHOD: Veterans with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder (N = 801) completed an assessment that included questions about demographic and clinical characteristics, status of family support, and preference for family involvement in their psychiatric care. Open-ended items were independently coded by two raters and categorized; Cohen's kappa was calculated for each category. RESULTS: Among the 801 participants, 496 (61.9%) indicated that they had a family member who provided them with regular support; 304 (37.9%) had no family member who provided support; and 1 did not respond. Among the 304 without support, 272 (89.4%) had a living family member. Of the 496 participants who had a supportive family member, 135 (27.2%) wanted their family member involved in their care. Of the 272 participants who did not have a supportive family member, but had living family, 57 (21.0%) wanted their family involved. Barriers to involvement included concerns about privacy and burden. Preferred method of involvement included contact with the patient's psychiatrist and education about the illness. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Preferences indicated by this large representative sample of individuals in care for schizophrenia indicate that a majority have supportive family and a substantial minority want family involved in their psychiatric care. Clinicians can address concerns about privacy and burden and deliver preferred services by phone or mail, overcoming anticipated barriers. Desire for family support groups was limited but present. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Implementation of evidence-based employment services in specialty mental health.

OBJECTIVE: Study a quality improvement approach for implementing evidence-based employment services at specialty mental health clinics. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Semistructured interviews with clinicians and administrators before, during, and after implementation. Qualitative field notes, structured baseline and follow-up interviews with patients, semistructured interviews with patients after implementation, and administrative data. STUDY DESIGN: Site-level controlled trial at four implementation and four control sites. Hybrid implementation-effectiveness study with mixed methods intervention evaluation design. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Site visits, in-person and telephone interviews, patient surveys, patient self-assessment. A total of 801 patients completed baseline surveys and 53 clinicians and other clinical key stakeholders completed longitudinal qualitative interviews. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: At baseline, sites varied in the availability, utilization, and quality of supported employment. Each site needed quality improvement for this service, though for differing reasons, with some needing development of the service itself and others needing increased service capacity. Improvements in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and referral behaviors were evident in mid- and postimplementation interviews, though some barriers persisted. Half of patients expressed an interest in working at baseline. Patients at implementation sites were 2.3 times more likely to receive employment services during the study year. Those who had a service visit were more likely to be employed at follow-up than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Studies of implementation and effectiveness require mixed methods to both enhance implementation in real time and provide context for interpretation of complex results. In this study, a quality improvement approach resulted in superior patient-level outcomes and improved clinician knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, in the context of substantial variation among sites.