Search

Objective: The Clubhouse model (CM) for serious mental illness is a recovery-oriented and member-driven program that aims to facilitate functional recovery. Efficacy evaluation of the CM is limited by lack of uniform functional disability assessment. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS-2.0) is a widely accepted measure of functional disability, but its psychometric properties have yet to be examined within the CM. Method: This research sought to confirm the generic six-factor structure of the 12-item WHODAS-2.0 using retrospective administrative data from 339 adults with serious mental illness from an accredited Clubhouse. A second-order confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, followed by secondary known-groups analyses to examine whether the WHODAS-2.0 differentiates between subgroups with varying degrees of disability. Results: The WHODAS-2.0 demonstrated good overall reliability. The generic six-factor structure produced nonsignificant loadings due to lack of independence between the "participation" and "getting along" factors. The items of these two factors were combined into a five-factor model, which displayed excellent fit, with all significant paths and adequate-to-strong loadings, and no correlation among errors. The WHODAS-2.0 significantly differentiated members by receipt of public assistance, employment status, and number of medical comorbidities, supporting construct validity. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: These results provide initial support for the use of the 12-item WHODAS-2.0 as a CM-related outcome measure and encourage future research of the full 36-item version. The intentional community approach of the CM is unique and may require adjustments to the factor structure of the WHODAS-2.0 by merging the "participation" and "getting along" domains. Impact and Implications: The Clubhouse model of psychosocial rehabilitation for serious mental illness is an effective approach for the treatment of functional disability, but continued efficacy research is limited by lack of a psychometrically sound outcomes assessment. This research lends support for the utility of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 as a reliable and potentially valid outcome assessment, but adjustment of the generic structure of this measure may be required in this unique therapeutic setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Traumatic experiences are prevalent among people with serious mental illness and can significantly worsen outcomes. This study aimed to identify an urban cluster of trauma types, compare continuous distress ratings versus categorical experience of trauma for predicting outcomes such as depression and quality of life, and investigate the mediating role of recovery orientation in the impact of trauma exposure on outcomes. Method: Data came from an intervention study on African Americans with serious mental illness living in a large urban area; 212 participants completed baseline self-report measures of past trauma experiences, related distress levels, recovery, depression, and quality of life. Data were assessed using correlations and regressive path modeling. Results: Overall, 56.6% of participants reported experiences with trauma. Analyses suggested an urban cluster of trauma types that was self-reported by over 25% of participants. Distress due to trauma strongly correlated with greater depression as well as reduced quality of life and recovery. Interestingly, the categorical presence of trauma history (yes/no) had no significant relationship with any outcomes. Path analyses revealed that recovery mediated the impact of trauma distress on depression and quality of life, specifically implicating the recovery subfactor of hope. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: Results suggested that cognitive reframing focused on positive appraisals of overall recovery, and the hope subfactor can have a positive influence on trauma outcomes. The study supported the role of recovery in posttraumatic growth and suggests that hope can be used to help patients process trauma healthily. Impact and Implications: This study identified a cluster of traumas commonly experienced by urban African Americans with serious mental illness. Distress ratings—but not categorical presence of trauma history—predicted outcomes of depression and reduced quality of life, mediated by cognitive appraisal of recovery and specifically the hope subfactor of hope. Practitioners might use cognitive reframing toward schemas of recovery and hope to facilitate posttraumatic growth and improve patient outcomes. Research should further examine trauma clusters and their impact on outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The support of the personal recovery of people with lived experience of mental illness is a major issue in clinical practice. Thus, a valid instrument to assess personal recovery is needed. The present study aimed to validate the French translation of the 22-item Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR-Fr). Method: A convenience sample of 222 participants reporting a severe mental illness diagnosis was recruited online. Psychometric properties of the QPR-Fr were evaluated. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted for structural validity. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were assessed. To test for convergent validity, we conducted multiple linear regression analysis to explore the QPR-Fr associations with psychological distress and the CHIME framework (with Connectedness, Hope and optimism about the future, Identity, Meaning in life, and Empowerment) proxy measures (perceived social support, hope, self-esteem, quality of life, and empowerment). Results: An adequate fit was found for a 19-item unidimensional factor structure. Internal consistency was excellent. Test reliability was good. The QPR-Fr total score was significantly positively associated with quality of life, hope, self-esteem, and social support satisfaction and negatively associated with psychological distress. No significant association was found with social support availability nor with empowerment. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: This study provides additional data to support the cross-cultural validity of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery. The QPR-Fr is a valid and reliable tool to assess personal recovery. Practitioners could use the QPR-Fr to assess personal recovery in collaboration with people with lived experience. Convergent validity with CHIME proxy measures supports the validity of the CHIME framework in a French cultural context. Impact and Implications: Because the present study found that the French version of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR-Fr) is a 19-item valid and reliable instrument to evaluate personal recovery, it can be implemented into routine practice for practitioners to collaboratively assess the personal recovery of people with lived experience. With the QPR-Fr, French researchers will also be able to investigate personal recovery and its associated factors to better understand what enhances or hinders personal recovery, paving the way to cross-cultural studies worldwide. This study constitutes a first step in the validation of the QPR-Fr. Addressing its limitations in further studies would help to render the QPR-Fr a more valuable instrument in clinical practice. It would have as implications the transformation of psychiatric practices toward a personal recovery approach and the development of national and international guidelines to assist the promotion of the personal recovery of people with a mental disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the English version of the Self-Stigma Scale–Short (SSS-S), a nine-item self-report self-stigma measurement, among U.S. adults with psychiatric disabilities. Method: We obtained reliability and validity evidence from a sample of 275 adults with psychiatric disabilities. Results: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA; n = 139) yielded a two-factor solution that accounts for 64.97% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 136) was conducted to compare alternative solutions, including a single-factor model, a two-correlated-factor model, a three-correlated-factor model, and a bifactorial model. The CFA results supported the bifactor S·I − 1 model as a superior latent factor structure for the SSS-S. The coefficient ω of the SSS-S was.94, indicating excellent internal reliability. Concurrent validity of the SSS-S was supported by significant positive correlations with societal stigma and psychiatric symptom severity, and negative correlations with psychiatric disability acceptance, general self-efficacy, and hope. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: The overall findings concluded that the English version of the SSS-S demonstrated reliable and valid scores and a primarily unidimensional structure of self-stigma among U.S. adults with psychiatric disabilities. Given the adverse impact of self-stigma and its relationships with recovery-related constructs shown in this study, the routine use of the SSS-S is recommended in psychiatric rehabilitation settings. Impact and Implications: This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the SSS-S in a sample of U.S. adults with psychiatric disabilities. It provided reliability and validity evidence for the SSS-S as a measurement of mental illness self-stigma in U.S. adults with psychiatric disabilities. Therefore, it is in fact suitable for measuring self-stigma in psychiatric rehabilitation settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Increasing service user involvement and collaboration with providers has become an important facet of the recovery movement. This study explored perspectives on the implementation and delivery of an intervention (Just Do You [JDY]) designed to improve treatment engagement among marginalized young adults diagnosed with serious mental illnesses. Method: Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted in-depth interviews (N = 11) with nine participants that included agency leaders, clinical providers, and researchers involved with the planning, delivery, and evaluation of JDY. We used grounded theory coding techniques and constant comparison to develop themes that capture the data on implementation and collaboration related to the delivery of JDY. Results: Two broad themes emerged: (a) collaboration between the clinician and person with lived experience and (b) collaborative culture within and between organizations. Findings capture how collaboration occurred between providers within the clinical encounter (e.g., combined strengths of clinicians and peers) and within and between organizations, clustering around several CFIR domains (e.g., inner setting, process, characteristics of individuals, intervention characteristics). Findings speak to the importance of a "culture of collaboration" in which collaboration is occurring across multiple levels of an organization to support the delivery and implementation of JDY. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: JDY can complement other collaborative approaches given its focus on improving initial engagement. Findings point to the perceived benefits of interventions that are facilitated by a clinician and a person with lived experience along with how their combined expertise can support recovery. Impact and Implications: This study examines the perspectives of agency leaders, clinical providers, and researchers on the implementation and delivery of an engagement intervention for young adults diagnosed with serious mental illnesses. Results point to the benefits of initial engagement interventions that are facilitated by a clinician and a person with lived experience, as a step toward participation in more long-term treatment decision making. Their combined expertise can support recovery and can complement other treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]