Organisational structures and processes for health and well-being: insights from work integration social enterprise.

BACKGROUND: Previous research on employee well-being for those who have experienced social and economic disadvantage and those with previous or existing mental health conditions has focused mainly on programmatic interventions. The purpose of this research was to examine how organisational structures and processes (such as policies and culture) influence well-being of employees from these types of backgrounds. METHODS: A case study ethnographic approach which included in-depth qualitative analysis of 93 semi-structured interviews of employees, staff, and managers, together with participant observation of four social enterprises employing young people. RESULTS: The data revealed that young people were provided a combination of training, varied work tasks, psychosocial support, and encouragement to cultivate relationships among peers and management staff. This was enabled through the following elements: structure and space; funding, finance and industry orientation; organisational culture; policy and process; and fostering local service networks.. The findings further illustrate how organisational structures at these workplaces promoted an inclusive workplace environment in which participants self-reported a decrease in anxiety and depression, increased self-esteem, increased self-confidence and increased physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: Replicating these types of organisational structures, processes, and culture requires consideration of complex systems perspectives on implementation fidelity which has implications for policy, practice and future research.

The health and well-being impacts of a work integration social enterprise from a systems perspective.

Recent research has drawn upon the social determinants of health (SDH) framework to attempt to systematize the relationship between social enterprise and health. In this article, we adopt a realist evaluation approach to conceptualize social enterprises, and work integration social enterprises in particular, as 'complex interventions' that necessarily produce differential health outcomes for their beneficiaries, communities and staff. Drawing upon the findings from four social enterprises involving a range of methods including 93 semi-structured interviews with employees, managers and enterprise partners, together with participant observation, we demonstrate that these health outcomes are influenced by a limitless mix of complex and dynamic interactions between systems, settings, spaces, relationships and organizational and personal factors that cannot be distilled by questions of causality and attribution found in controlled trial designs. Given the increased policy focus on the potential of social enterprises to affect the SDH, this article seeks to respond to evidence gaps about the mechanisms and contexts through which social enterprises promote or constrain health outcomes, and thereby provide greater clarity about how research evidence can be used to support the social enterprise sector and policy development more broadly.

Work integration social enterprises (WISEs) are hybrid organizations that operate as businesses with a social purpose. WISEs focus on employment of people excluded from open employment, often as a result of discriminatory attitudes and practices of employers to people from minority groups and those experiencing disability or health-related problems. There is a lack of research on the ways in which a WISE could positively impact on individual health and well-being. We interviewed employees, managers and enterprise partners, together with participant observation, across four social enterprises to understand these dynamics. Through a number of strategies including flexible workplace structures, a culture of acceptance and support, encouragement to take risks and make mistakes and creative use of space, the participants described changes to health and well-being such as decreased symptoms of anxiety and depression, increased social connections, improved physical activity and increased confidence and self-esteem. Results show a mix of strategies combined with individually tailored support; this has implications for the type of research that is appropriate to understand these impacts. We conclude with suggestions on how future research could use complex research designs to understand how WISEs can influence health and well-being.

Right choice, right time: Evaluation of an online decision aid for youth depression.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate treatment for youth depression is an important public health priority. Shared decision making has been recommended, yet no decision aids exist to facilitate this. OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to evaluate an online decision aid for youth depression. DESIGN: An uncontrolled cohort study with pre-decision, immediately post-decision and follow-up measurements. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Young people (n=66) aged 12-25 years with mild, mild-moderate or moderate-severe depression were recruited from two enhanced primary care services. INTERVENTION: Online decision aid with evidence communication, preference elicitation and decision support components. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were ability to make a decision; whether the decision was in line with clinical practice guidelines, personal preferences and values; decisional conflict; perceived involvement; satisfaction with decision; adherence; and depression scores at follow-up. RESULTS: After using the decision aid, clients were more likely to make a decision in line with guideline recommendations (93% vs 70%; P=.004), were more able to make a decision (97% vs 79%; P=.022), had significantly reduced decisional conflict (17.8 points lower (95% CI: 13.3-22.9 points lower) on the Decisional Conflict Scale (range 0-100)) and felt involved and satisfied with their decision. At follow-up, clients had significantly reduced depression symptoms (2.7 points lower (95% CI: 1.3-4.0 points lower) on the Patient Health Questionnaire nine-item scale (range 0-27)) and were adherent to 88% (95% CI: 82%-94%) of treatment courses. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid for youth depression can help ensure evidence-based, client-centred care, promoting collaboration in this often difficult to engage population.

Shared Decision Making With Young People at Ultra High Risk of Psychotic Disorder.

Introduction: While the majority of young people who meet the criteria for being considered at increased risk of psychosis do not go on to develop a psychotic disorder, young people are currently being identified and treated in early intervention services. Ethical concerns have been raised concerning the decision about whether or not to provide treatment, and if so, what type of treatment. This study sought to support young people themselves to make these decisions with support from their clinician through a shared decision-making approach, facilitated by an online decision aid. Methods: This project used the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) to guide the development and piloting of an online decision aid across two phases: (1) qualitative, semi-structured focus groups with young people who were past clients and clinicians from an early psychosis service; and (2) pilot testing of the decision aid with clinicians and young people who were current clients to finalize the development. Results: Issues discussed by clinicians in the focus group were grouped into three main areas: (1) engagement phase; (2) assessment and priorities for treatment; and (3) initial and ongoing decision making. Clients focused on the context in which the decisions were made, including as they experienced initial feelings of resistance, and then acceptance of efforts made to describe and treat their mental health challenges. Clients highlighted the need for collaboration between themselves and their clinician, and the need to be equipped with the knowledge and tools to take care of themselves. These focus group data were used to refine the online decision aid. Pilot testing revealed that while it was overall useful and relevant, important limitations were noted by both clients and clinicians. Discussion: The use of a decision aid to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) in this area is feasible and has utility for both clients and clinicians. Use of such a tool can help to address the need to uphold the rights of young people as decision makers about their own care. Future efforts should embed decision aids within complex SDM interventions, and research to understand issues relating to implementation of these interventions.