Search

Objective: To explore how stakeholders responded to research evidence regarding supported employment (e.g., vocational rehabilitation), and ways evidence could be incorporated into policy and action. Data sources: Qualitative data were collected from three stakeholder groups-people with lived experience of mental health challenges, community health advocates, and state health policy makers. Study design: This study consisted of two sequential steps. First, three focus groups were conducted after presenting stakeholder groups (inclusive of 22 participants) with simulation data showing that improvement in employment status had a stronger impact on mental health than improvement in education or income for racially/ethnically diverse groups. Second, with guidance from focus group findings, researchers conducted additional in-depth interviews (n = 19) to gain a deeper understanding of the opportunities and challenges related to incorporating these findings into policy and practice. Data collection/extraction methods: Focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted, audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Principal findings: People with lived experience described the positive effect of employment in their own life while highlighting the need to increase workplace accommodations and social supports for those with mental health challenges. Across stakeholder groups, participants emphasized the need for linguistic and cultural competence to promote equity in delivery of supported employment programs. Stakeholders also underscored that centralizing existing resources and using evidence-based approaches are crucial for successful implementation. Conclusion: Implementing effective supported employment programs should focus on meeting the specific needs of target individuals, as many of those needs are not considered in current employment-related programming. Collecting information from diverse users of research demonstrates what other aspects of supported employment are required for the likelihood of successful uptake. Implementation and dissemination efforts need to fortify collaborations and knowledge transfer between stakeholders to optimize supported employment and mental health resources. KEYWORDS dissemination and implementation research, health disparities, health policy, mental health, minoritized groups, people of color, social determinants of health, supported employment What is known on this topic * Social determinants of health, such as education, employment, and income, are important predictors of mental health outcomes and quality of life for people living with mental illness. * Even though evidence-based supported employment programs, such as the Individual Placement and Support program, are effective for sustaining competitive employment among people with serious mental illness, these are often unavailable. * Important stakeholders have little opportunity to weigh in on ways research evidence--such as those related to supported employment--could be translated into policy and practice. What this study adds * Insights about why this supported employment model might need additional revisions (e.g., workplace accommodations, culturally responsive training) to make it feasible for different stakeholders. * Support for the importance of gathering input from many types of stakeholders: three different stakeholder groups had systematically different ways of interpreting the same research evidence, and each group contributes unique insights for improving dissemination. * Concrete examples of structural components that can support Individual Placement and Support services, including fidelity measurement and regular supervision throughout implementation., 1 | INTRODUCTION Scientists have long established how social determinants of health (e.g., education, employment, income, and housing) relate to outcomes and quality of life among people with mental health [...]

•This multisite clinical trial tests whether Positive Minds-Strong Bodies (PMSB), a disability prevention intervention offered in four languages, is acceptable to minority and immigrant elders and feasible to be offered by paraprofessionals.•The 6-month intent-to-treat analyses showed significant intervention effects in improving late-life functioning and lowering mood symptoms while the 12-month analyses showed sustained significant effects on self-reported disability, disability days, and mood symptoms.•The PMSB intervention shows promise in preventing disability in a diverse sample of minority and immigrant elders.

Few longitudinal studies have explored to date whether minority status in disadvantaged neighborhoods conveys risk for negative mental health outcomes, and the mechanisms possibly leading to such risk. We investigated how minority status influences four developmental mental health outcomes in an ethnically homogeneous sample of Puerto Rican youth. We tested models of risk for major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), depressive and anxiety symptoms (DAS), and psychological distress, as Puerto Rican youth (aged 5‐13 years) transitioned to early adulthood (15‐29 years) in two sites, one where they grew up as a majority (the island of Puerto Rico), and another where they were part of a minority group (South Bronx, New York). At baseline, a stratified sample of 2,491 Puerto Rican youth participated from the two sites. After baseline assessment (Wave 1), each youth participant and one caregiver were assessed annually for two years, for a total of three time points (Waves 1‐3). From April 2013 to August 2017, participants were contacted for a Wave 4 interview, and a total of 2,004 young people aged 15 to 29 years participated in the assessment (response rate adjusted for eligibility = 82.8%). Using a quasi‐experimental design, we assessed impacts of minority status on MDD, GAD, DAS and psychological distress. Via mediation analyses, we explored potential mechanisms underlying the observed relationships. Data from 1,863 Puerto Rican youth (after exclusion of those with MDD or GAD during Waves 1‐3) indicated links between minority status and higher rates of lifetime and past‐year GAD, DAS and past 30‐day psychological distress at Wave 4, and a marginal trend for MDD, even after adjustments. Childhood social support and peer relationships partially explained the differences, as did intercultural conflict, neighborhood discrimination, and unfair treatment in young adulthood. The experience of growing up as a minority, as defined by context, seemingly elevates psychiatric risks, with differences in social relationships and increased social stress as mediators of this relationship. Our findings suggest that interventions at the neighborhood context rather than at the individual level might be important levers to reduce risks for the development of mood disorders in minority youth.