Background: People with severe mental illnesses (SMIs) have difficulty participating in society through work or other daily activities. Aims: To establish the effectiveness with which the Boston University Approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) improves the level of social participation in people with SMIs, in the Netherlands. Method: In a randomized controlled trial involving 188 people with SMIs, we compared BPR (n = 98) with an Active Control Condition (ACC, n = 90) (Trial registration ISRCTN88987322). Multilevel modeling was used to study intervention effects over two six-month periods. The primary outcome measure was level of social participation, expressed as having participated in paid or unpaid employment over the past six months, as the total hours spent in paid or unpaid employment, and as the current level of social participation. Secondary outcome measures were clients’ views on rehabilitation goal attainment, Quality of Life (QOL), personal recovery, self-efficacy, and psychosocial functioning. Results: During the study, social participation, QOL, and psychosocial functioning improved in patients in both groups. However, BPR was not more effective than ACC on any of the outcomes. Better social participation was predicted by previous work experience and a lower intensity of psychiatric symptoms. Conclusions: While ACC was as effective as BPR in improving the social participation of individuals with SMIs, much higher percentages of participants in our sample found (paid) work or other meaningful activities than in observational studies without specific support for social participation. This suggests that focused rehabilitation efforts are beneficial, irrespective of the specific methodology used.
Background: There is an increasing number of patients with a chronic illness demanding primary care services. This demands for effective self-management support, including collaborative goal setting. Despite the fact that primary care professionals seem to have difficulties implementing goal setting, little information is available about the factors influencing the complexity of this process in primary care. Objective: The aim of this study was to contribute to an understanding of the complexity of selfmanagement goal setting in primary care by exploring experts’ and primary care professionals’ experiences with self-management goal setting and viewpoints regarding influencing factors. Methods: A descriptive qualitative research methodology was adopted. Two focus groups and three individual interviews were conducted (total participants n = 17). Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: The findings were categorized into four main themes with subordinated subthemes. The themes focus around the complexity of setting non-medical goals and around professionals’ skills and attitudes to negotiate and decide about goals with patients. Furthermore, patients’ skills and attitudes for goal setting and the integration of goal setting in the time available were formulated as themes. Conclusions: Setting self-management goals in primary care, especially in family medicine, might require a shift from a medical perspective to a biopsychosocial perspective, with an increasing role set aside for the professional to coach the patient in expressing his self-management goals and to take responsibility for these goals.
Abstract Background: Nurses are consistently present throughout the rehabilitation of older patients but are apprehensive about performing goal-centred care in the multidisciplinary team. Objectives: The aim of this review was to explore working interventions on setting goals and working with goals designed for nurses in geriatric rehabilitation, and to describe their distinctive features. Methods: We performed a scoping review. We searched MEDLINE and CINAHL through August 4, 2021. Search terms related to the following themes: nurses, rehabilitation, geriatric, goal and method. We used snowballing to find additional. From the selected studies, we systematically extracted data on means, materials and the nursing role and summarized them in a narrative synthesis, using intervention component analysis. Results: The study includes 13 articles, describing 11 interventions which were developed for six different aims: improving multidisciplinary team care; increasing patient centredness; improving disease management by patients; improving the psychological, and emotional rehabilitation; increasing the nursing involvement in rehabilitation; or helping patients to achieve goals. The interventions appeal to four aspects of the nursing profession: assessing self-care skills incorporating patient's preferences; setting goals with patients, taking into account personal needs and what is medically advisable; linking the needs of the patient with multidisciplinary professional treatment and vice versa; and thus, playing an intermediate role and supporting goal achievement. Conclusions: The interventions show that in goal-centred care, the nurse might play an important unifying role between patients and the multidisciplinary team. With the support of nurses, the patient may become more aware of the rehabilitation process and transfer of ownership of treatment goals from the multidisciplinary team to the patient might be achieved. Not many interventions were found meant to support thenursing role. This may indicate a blind spot in the rehabilitation community to the additional value of its contribution.
