No

This study provides early indication that the model has potential to be applied across disability categories as well as demographically diverse school systems. It also it has the potential to serve as a practice framework that alleviates barriers known to impede federal transition policy.

The study found several similarities and differences between youth with disabilities and typically developing youth. For youth with disabilities, differences in job interview answers included: (1) disclosing their condition; (2) giving fewer examples related to customer service and teamwork skills; (3) experiencing greater challenges in providing feedback to team members and responding to scenario-based problem solving questions; and (4) drawing on examples from past work, volunteer and extracurricular activities.

Implementing supported employment services with high fidelity to the IPS model clearly improves competitive employment outcomes.

Common barriers for youth with developmental disabilities were lack of work experience, transportation problems, cognitive problems, disengagement from the IPS program, and lack of social skills. Common barriers for youth with psychiatric disabilities were transportation problems, failure to engage in the IPS program, poor control of psychiatric symptoms, and lack or work experience.

Physical functions and capacities, supervisor's attitude, self-esteem and self-efficacy and openness and assertiveness were experienced barriers and facilitators for finding and maintaining employment. Improvement of self-promoting skills and disclosure skills through job interview-training, increased self-esteem or self-efficacy through peer-support, a suitable job through job placement, improvement of work ability through arrangement of adjusted work conditions and change of supervisor's attitude through education provided to the supervisor were perceived as beneficial attributes of the program.

Measures of both client-level service delivery and site-level fidelity to IPS suggest that implementation was successful at most, but not all, sites. Overall, compared with veterans in the phase 1 group, those in the phase 2 group had a better long-term work history at the time of program entry. When the analyses controlled for baseline differences, the mean number of competitive employment days per month over the two-year follow-up period was 15% higher for veterans in phase 2 (8.4 days compared with 7.3 days; p<.001) and the mean number of days housed during follow-up was also higher in phase 2 (34.1 days compared with 29.8 days; p=.04), but there were no differences for other outcome measures. (Psychiatric Services 58:325—333, 2007)

Thirty percent of the sample continued to work during treatment. There were no significant differences between cancer groups, type of treatment received or age groups. Flexibility with work arrangements, and disclosure were factors related to working during treatment. Working during treatment was also associated with difficulties managing fatigue. Forty two percent of the respondents returned to work following treatment. Factors related to return to work following treatment included: difficulties managing fatigue, managing the stress of cancer, managing physical changes associated with cancer, receiving advice from their doctor about work and return to work meeting with their employer.

Both low and high scoring fidelity items helped identify practical ways to further develop evidence-based practices at each site.

The video group had the greatest number of reported and identified pressure ulcers. Differences in health care utilization between the video and telephone telehealth groups were small. The standard care group reported the lowest number of pressure ulcers and lowest frequency of health care utilization. Substantial differences existed in employment rates before and after injury. The video group had the lowest pre-injury rate of employment and the highest post-injury rate of employment.

The most consistent predictors and indicators of employment outcomes included premorbid occupational status, functional status at discharge, global cognitive functioning, perceptual functioning, executive functioning, involvement in vocational rehabilitation services and emotional status. The authors note that although the presence of specific characteristics may be a predictor for failure to return to work the absence of a factor does not guarantee return to work.
There is little evidence to support cognitive rehabilitation. The most successful programs target problems with motivation and emotional disturbance. Interventions to modify the social environment need to occur on multiple levels. A person's preferences for employment impact job retention. Supported employment has been described however, further evaluation of outcomes is needed. At a policy level a major barrier exists in the current service delivery system in which individuals do not have access to long term rehabilitation or specialized vocational support. Changes in public policy and funding could improve service delivery. Developing disability management programs may also assist those at risk for chronic unemployment post TBI.