There is no conflict of interest.
Highlights
- The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Vocational Peer Support (VPS) on employment and attitude outcomes.
- The study was a randomized controlled trial that assigned adults with psychiatric disabilities to a VPS treatment group or a control group. Using follow-up assessments and statistical models, the authors compared the outcomes of the treatment and control group members.
- The study found that treatment group participants had significantly improved work readiness scores compared to control group participants.
- This study receives a moderate evidence rating. This means we are somewhat confident that the estimate effects are attributable to Vocational Peer Support, but other factors may have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Features of the Intervention
Vocational Peer Support (VPS) is a model that combines peer support with psychiatric rehabilitation to help individuals move forward with their vocational lives. It pairs individuals with a vocational peer support specialist who shares their own experiences and knowledge of vocational services. This relationship aims to provide hope, motivation, and access to resources. Participants in VPS set vocational goals and learn actionable steps to secure their desired jobs. They collaborate with employment services and gather necessary information to achieve these goals. The program targets adults with psychiatric conditions who are receiving mental health services and are interested in peer support and vocational development.
Features of the Study
The study was a randomized controlled trial at two nonprofit mental health agencies: one located in a large southwestern city and the other in a suburban northeastern city. After baseline data collection, 83 individuals were assigned to the treatment group and 83 were assigned to the control group. The treatment group received VPS, while the control group received usual peer support. The treatment group were mostly women (51.8%) and White (62.7%) with an average age of 43 years. Less than half had some college or an associate’s degree (42.2%), most received SSI/SSDI (74.7%), and the primary psychiatric diagnosis was bipolar disorder (31.3%) or schizophrenia-spectrum/schizoaffective disorder (25.5%). The control group were mostly women (50.6%) and White (61.4%) with an average age of 45 years. Over half had some college or an associate’s degree (53%), most received SSI/SSDI (75.9%), and the primary psychiatric diagnosis was schizophrenia-spectrum/schizoaffective disorder (41%) or bipolar disorder (26.5%).
The primary data sources were a baseline assessment to gather demographic and clinical data and the Work Hope, Work Readiness, and Quality of Life Scales that were administered at 6- and 12-months post baseline. Outcomes included currently working, work satisfaction, individual work goals, agency to feel capable of working, pathways to find an enjoyable job, mental well-being for work, awareness of the world of work, social support for pursuing vocational goals, commitment to change in order to get and keep a job, and self-awareness about interests and abilities for employment. The authors used statistical models to compare the outcomes of the treatment and control group members.
Findings
Employment
- The study found no significant differences between the treatment and control groups in the percentage of individuals reporting that they were currently working.
Attitudes
- The study found significant differences on work readiness scores, with treatment participants reporting greater awareness of the world of work, more support to pursue vocational goals, and better mental well-being than control group participants.
- However, the study found no significant differences between the groups on work hope scores or quality of life scores.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors did not provide enough information to determine attrition for all study outcomes. However, the study groups were comparable in terms of demographic composition and the authors included control variables in the analyses for outcomes with baseline differences. Also, the authors were unable to control for instances where peer support specialists may have shared intervention skills and knowledge with peer support specialists working with individuals in the control group. Therefore, some individuals in the control group may have been exposed to skills and knowledge that were taught in the intervention.
Causal Evidence Rating
Topic Area
Research Guidelines
Review Protocol: Living Systematic Annual Search and Review Protocol
Review Guidelines: Causal Evidence Guidelines