Protocol for the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) in Pain Trial: A randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of IPS for patients with chronic pain

Individual supported work placements (ReISE) for improving sustained return to work in unemployed people with persistent pain: study protocol for a cohort randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and process evaluations

BACKGROUND

Around one-third of workdays lost in Norway are due to musculoskeletal conditions, with persistent (chronic) pain being the most frequent cause of sick leave and work disability. Increasing work participation for people with persistent pain improves their health, quality of life, and well-being and reduces poverty; however, it is not clear how to best help unemployed people who have persistent pain to return to work. The aim of this study is to examine if a matched work placement intervention featuring case manager support and work-focused healthcare improves return to work rates and quality of life for unemployed people in Norway with persistent pain who want to work.

METHODS

We will use a cohort randomised controlled approach to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a matched work placement intervention featuring case manager support and work-focused healthcare compared to those receiving usual care in the cohort alone. We will recruit people aged 18-64, who have been out of work for at least 1 month, had pain for more than 3 months, and want to work. Initially, all (n = 228) will be recruited to an observational cohort study on the impact of being unemployed with persistent pain. We will then randomly select one in three to be offered the intervention. The primary outcome of sustained return to work will be measured using registry and self-reported data, while secondary outcomes include self-reported levels of health-related quality of life and physical and mental health. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months post-randomisation. We will run a process evaluation parallel to the intervention exploring implementation, continuity of the intervention, reasons for participating, declining participation, and mechanisms behind cases of sustained return to work. An economic evaluation of the trial process will also be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The ReISE intervention is designed to increase work participation for people with persistent pain. The intervention has the potential to improve work ability by collaboratively navigating obstacles to working. If successful, the intervention may be a viable option for helping people in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry 85,437,524 Registered on 30 March 2022.

A pilot trial investigating the feasibility of a future randomised controlled trial of Individualised Placement and Support for people unemployed with chronic pain recruiting in primary care

BACKGROUND

We investigated the feasibility of recruiting patients unemployed for more than 3 months with chronic pain using a range of methods in primary care in order to conduct a pilot trial of Individual Placement and Support (IPS) to improve quality of life outcomes for people with chronic pain.

METHODS

This research was informed by people with chronic pain. We assessed the feasibility of identification and recruitment of unemployed patients; the training and support needs of employment support workers to integrate with pain services; acceptability of randomisation, retention through follow-up and appropriate outcome measures for a definitive trial. Participants randomised to IPS received integrated support from an employment support worker and a pain occupational therapist to prepare for, and take up, a work placement. Those randomised to Treatment as Usual (TAU) received a bespoke workbook, delivered at an appointment with a research nurse not trained in vocational rehabilitation.

RESULTS

Using a range of approaches, recruitment through primary care was difficult and resource-intensive (1028 approached to recruit 37 eligible participants). Supplementing recruitment through pain services, another 13 people were recruited (total n = 50). Randomisation to both arms was acceptable: 22 were allocated to IPS and 28 to TAU. Recruited participants were generally not 'work ready', particularly if recruited through pain services.

CONCLUSION

A definitive randomised controlled trial is not currently feasible for recruiting through primary care in the UK. Although a trial recruiting through pain services might be possible, participants could be unrepresentative in levels of disability and associated health complexities. Retention of participants over 12 months proved challenging, and methods for reducing attrition are required. The intervention has been manualised.

The Individual Placement and Support (IPS) in Pain Trial: A randomized controlled trial of IPS for patients with chronic pain conditions

Objectives

Although complex pain conditions require an interdisciplinary approach, employment services are rarely provided in pain centers. Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an effective approach to increase work participation among patients with severe mental illness, and recent evidence suggests that this method can be successfully repurposed for new target groups. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of IPS integrated with interdisciplinary treatment as usual (TAU) for patients with chronic pain in a tertiary pain center.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial comparing IPS integrated with TAU (n = 38) with TAU alone (n = 20) was conducted. Participants were patients with chronic pain who were 18–65 years of age and currently on long-term sick leave or disability benefits or unemployed. The primary outcome was employment within 12 months after enrollment, with additional long-term follow-up after 24 months. Secondary outcomes included health and quality of life, measured at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.

Results

During 12-month follow-up, 52.8% in the IPS group and 38.9% in the TAU group had attained employment. The difference increased during 24-month follow-up but did not reach statistical significance. Findings on secondary outcomes were generally nonsignificant.

Conclusions

The IPS in Pain trial is the first study to evaluate the effect of IPS for patients with chronic pain conditions. It shows that IPS can be integrated into the daily practice of interdisciplinary pain treatment, with employment rates exceeding 50% in 1 year and a clear trend in favor of the IPS group. Results did not, however, reach significance. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to draw clear conclusions about effectiveness.

A structured mixed method process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of Individual Placement and Support (IPS)

Background

Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is an evidence-based work rehabilitation program helping people with moderate to severe mental illness to obtain ordinary employment. Although IPS has proven superior to other work rehabilitation programs, in many studies, the majority of the participants remain unemployed. Structured process evaluations of IPS that use mixed methods are scarce, although they could identify implementation aspects that may enhance its effect. The aim of the current study is to assess reach, fidelity, and identify barriers and facilitators to implement IPS.

Methods

The process evaluation was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial including six IPS centers, comparing IPS with treatment as usual in a population of patients in treatment for moderate to severe mental illness. Mixed methods were used in the process evaluation, including focus group interviews with service providers, individual interviews and survey data from participants, and fidelity reviews using the validated IPS Fidelity Scale.

Results

The intervention reached the intended target group. All centers reached fair to good fidelity according to the IPS Fidelity Scale within the project period (range 97–109, SD 8.1) (see Table 5). Certain fidelity items indicated implementation issues related to employer contact, community-based services, and integration with health services. Survey data showed that less than half of the participants regarded their illness as a barrier for participating in IPS and that freedom of disclosure was important. Participant interviews gave further insight into the role of the IPS specialist, emphasizing their availability and consistent job focus.

Conclusions

Indications of implementation challenges across centers during the first year suggest special attention should be given to these aspects in an early phase to ensure higher fidelity from the start and thus enhance the effectiveness of IPS. The IPS specialist played an important role for participants and was described as positive, pushing in a positive way, and encouraging. More knowledge on the characteristics of successful IPS specialists could further enhance the effectiveness of the intervention.

Trial registration

The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov prior to the inclusion period (reg.no: NCT01964092, registered 17/07/2013).

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s43058-020-00083-9.

Development and feasibility of an intervention featuring individual supported work placements to aid return to work for unemployed people living with chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Working in good jobs is associated with good health. High unemployment rates are reported in those disabled with musculoskeletal pain. Supported employment interventions work well for helping people with mental health difficulties to gain and retain employment. With adaptation, these may be useful for people with chronic pain. We aimed to develop and explore the feasibility of delivering such an adapted intervention.

METHODS

We developed an intervention and recruited unemployed people with chronic pain from NHS pain clinics and employment services. We trained case managers to assess participants and match them to six-week work placements in the Midlands and provide ongoing support to them and their managers. Participants attended a two-day work preparation session prior to placement. Outcome measures included quality of life at baseline, six- weeks, 14-weeks, and six-months, and return to work at 14-weeks and six-months. We held focus groups or interviews with stakeholders to examine acceptability and experiences of the intervention.

RESULTS

We developed an intervention consisting of work preparation sessions, work experience placements, and individualised employment support. We enrolled 31 people; 27 attended work preparation sessions, and 15 attended placements. Four of our participants started jobs during the study period. We are aware of two others starting jobs shortly after cessation of follow-up. We experienced challenges to recruitment in one area where we had many and diverse placement opportunities and good recruitment in another area where we had a smaller range of placement opportunities. All stakeholders found the intervention acceptable, and it was valued by those given a placement. While there was some disappointment among those not placed, this group still valued the work preparation sessions.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed intervention was acceptable to participants and partners. Trialling the developed intervention could be feasible with attention to three main processes. To ensure advanced availability of a sufficiently wide range of work placements in each area, multiple partners would be needed. Multiple recruitment sites and focus on employment services will yield better recruitment rates than reliance on NHS pain clinics. Maintaining an adequate follow-up response rate will likely require additional approaches with more than the usual effort.

Exploring the views of stakeholders about the feasibility of carrying out a randomised controlled trial of Individual Placement and Support for people unemployed with chronic pain based in primary care (the InSTEP study)

Background

Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is a model of vocational rehabilitation originally developed to help people with severe mental illness obtain and maintain employment. Work disability is common amongst people with chronic pain conditions, yet few effective interventions exist. As part of mixed-methods feasibility research and as a forerunner to a pilot trial (In STEP), we investigated the barriers and facilitators to carrying out a future randomised controlled trial of IPS set in primary care amongst people unemployed with chronic pain.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with: unemployed people with health conditions receiving IPS (clients), Employment Support Workers (ESWs) delivering IPS for people with chronic health conditions and primary healthcare professionals. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analysed with field notes using thematic analysis.

Results

All stakeholders generally viewed a future trial of IPS positively and deemed both the intervention and treatment as usual acceptable. Themes that emerged regarding potential barriers were recruitment, the importance of recruiting people voluntarily who wanted to return to work and were motivated to do so and giving them agency in the process; a need for additional training and support of the ESWs; and a risk of over-burdening participants with paperwork. Regarding facilitators however, the themes were offering the intervention early after unemployment, the importance of relationship and continuity with the ESWs and that an employment intervention could bring a range of health benefits.

Conclusions

All stakeholders thought that a randomised trial was potentially feasible and highlighted some potential advantages of participation.

Trial registration

Study no ISRCTN30094062

Addressing Severe Mental Illness Rehabilitation in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Peru

Many Latin American countries face the challenge of caring for a growing number of people with severe mental illnesses while promoting deinstitutionalization and community-based care. This article presents an overview of current policies that aim to reform the mental health care system and advance the employment of people with disabilities in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Peru. The authors conducted a thematic analysis by using public records and semistructured interviews with stakeholders. The authors found evidence of supported employment programs for vulnerable populations, including people with disabilities, but found that the programs did not include people with severe mental illnesses. Five relevant themes were found to hamper progress in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation services: rigid labor markets, insufficient advocacy, public subsidies that create conflicting incentives, lack of deinstitutionalized models, and lack of reimbursement for evidence-based psychiatric rehabilitation interventions. Policy reforms in these countries have promoted the use of medical interventions to treat people with severe mental illnesses but not the use of evidence-based rehabilitation programs to facilitate community integration and functional recovery. Because these countries have other supported employment programs for people with nonpsychiatric disabilities, they are well positioned to pilot individual placement and support to accelerate full community integration among individuals with severe mental illnesses.

Opportunities and challenges around adapting supported employment interventions for people with chronic low back pain: modified nominal group technique

PURPOSE

To identify and rank opportunities and challenges around adapting supported employment interventions for people with chronic low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Delegates from an international back and neck research forum were invited to join an expert panel. A modified nominal group technique (NGT) was used with four stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification, and ranking. Ranked items were reported back and ratified by the panel.

RESULTS

Nine experienced researchers working in the fields related to LBP and disability joined the panel. Forty-eight items were generated and grouped into 12 categories of opportunities/challenges. Categories ranked most important related respectively to policy and legislation, ensuring operational integration across different systems, funding interventions, and managing attitudes towards work and health, workplace flexibility, availability of "good" work for this client group, dissonance between client and system aims, timing of interventions, and intervention development.

CONCLUSIONS

An expert panel believes the most important opportunities/challenges around adapting supporting employment interventions for people with chronic LBP are facilitating integration/communication between systems and institutions providing intervention components, optimising research outputs for informing policy needs, and encouraging discussion around funding mechanisms for research and interventions. Addressing these factors may help improve the quality and impact of future interventions.Implications for rehabilitationInteraction pathways between health, employment, and social systems need to be improved to effectively deliver intervention components that necessarily span these systems.Research-policy communication needs to be improved by researchers and policy makers, so that research outputs can be consumed by policy makers, and so that researchers recognise the gaps in knowledge needed to underpin policy.Improvements in research-policy communication and coordination would facilitate the delivery of research output at a time when it is likely to make the most impact on policy-making.Discussion and clarification surrounding funding mechanisms for research and interventions may facilitate innovation generally.

Expanding Individual Placement and Support to Populations With Conditions and Disorders Other Than Serious Mental Illness

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review of studies of individual placement and support (IPS) for populations other than those with serious mental illness was conducted.

METHODS

The authors searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) for studies of IPS and modified IPS. Eligibility criteria for the systematic review included randomized controlled trials with prospective data collection on competitive employment rate and at least 10 study participants from a well-defined population other than people with serious mental illness. Results were compiled for competitive employment rates, IPS fidelity, and other outcomes.

RESULTS

Three clinical groups other than people with serious mental illness have been studied: people with psychiatric disorders other than serious mental illness, people with substance use disorders, and people with musculoskeletal or neurological disorders. Nine controlled trials with a total of 2,902 participants included six trials with people who had psychiatric disorders other than serious mental illness, two with people who had substance use disorders, and one with people who had spinal cord injuries. In eight studies, results for competitive employment rates significantly favored IPS. Meta-analysis yielded an overall weighted odds ratio of 2.23 (95% confidence interval=1.53-3.24, p<.001). Findings for other employment outcomes also favored IPS, but findings on symptom reduction and quality of life were inconsistent. The strongest (and only replicated) findings were for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Methodological limitations included small samples, major modifications to IPS fidelity, and short follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

IPS, often with modifications, is a promising employment intervention for several populations in addition to people with serious mental illnesses. The strongest evidence pertains to veterans with PTSD. IPS should be offered to these veterans. Research on other populations, including people with anxiety, depression, substance use disorder, musculoskeletal or neurological conditions, or pain syndromes, needs development, amplification, and replication.