Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:44:45.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Keeping the Door Open: The Function of the Supported Employment Programme During the First Year of COVID-19 Pandemic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

David Gutnisky*
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Mental Health, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina Universidad de Buenos Aires, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
Licenciate Maria Soledad Ortega
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Mental Health, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
Horacio Rodriguez O'Connor
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Mental Health, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
Licenciate Sandra Garcia Taboada
Affiliation:
General Directorate of Mental Health, Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

The Supported Employment Programme of the General Directorate of Mental Health of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires has been running for the last five years. Its purpose is to help adults with severe mental illness obtain and maintain competitive work in the community and provide the support necessary throughout the entire process and follow-up after successful inclusion. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has had upon the Programme and to analyse the main causes of clients’ drop-off despite the fact the modifications were put in order to keep running the service during the lockdown.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of case records of the Supported Employment Programme from 1 January 2020 to 31 December of 2020.

Different variables were analysed to identify the main causes of dropout. Between them, variables related to the digital divide, fear of COVID-19, and increased economic vulnerability.

Results

At the beginning of 2020, the programme had 51 users and received 11 referrals throughout the year, of whom 8 users were finally admitted. Therefore, 59 users entered this sample, 40.7% were women (n=24) and 59.3% were men (n=35). Mean age 40.4, ranging from 18 to 65 years of age (sd = 11.6). No significant differences were found in sex, age, or level of instruction between participants. The dropout rate after the lockdown was introduced reached 50.3% (n = 30), and there were no significant differences between those who left the programme and those who continued, with respect to sex, age, or level of instruction. Significant differences were found between these two groups in access to Technology (T= –6.158 p<0.000); Digital illiteracy (T–3.247 p<0.003); fear of getting COVID-19 (–7.616 p<0.000). However, having obtained a job through the programme was a protective factor against leaving, and only one user out of nine who got a job through the programme dropped out. This difference was at the significant level (T=2.671 p<0.05).

Conclusion

Even though, in an attempt to keep the Programme running during the strict lockdown that was imposed during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, moving the face-to-face interviews to remote ones through digital platforms did no guarantee the access to service. The digital divide was one of the main causes of dropout of users. It is important to point out the protective value that had to have obtained a job through the programme against leaving.

Type
Service Evaluation
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.