Browsing by Author "Rapp, Charles A."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Comparative Effectiveness of a Model of Job Development versus Treatment as Usual
    (2018) Carlson, Linda; Smith, Galen; Rapp, Charles A.; Mariscal, E. Susana; Holter, Mark C.; Ko, Eunjeong; Kukla, Marina; Fukui, Sadaaki; School of Social Work
    Job development is critical to assisting people with serious disabilities to obtain jobs, but little is known about the actual methods that make job development effective. Using a post-only quasi-experimental design, this study examined the effects of the Conceptual Selling® method on the number of job development contacts and number of job placements. By controlling for employment specialists' characteristics (age, length of time in current position, years of human service experience, and years of business experience), the authors determined that the employment specialists trained in the Conceptual Selling® method had more job development contacts per employer, leading to more effective job placements for employers contacted, than the control group.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Consumer Outcomes After Implementing CommonGround as an Approach to Shared Decision Making
    (APA, 2017-03) Salyers, Michelle P.; Fukui, Sadaaki; Bonfils, Kelsey A.; Firmin, Ruth L.; Luther, Lauren; Goscha, Rick; Rapp, Charles A.; Holter, Mark C.; Psychology, School of Science
    Objective: The authors examined consumer outcomes before and after implementing CommonGround, a computer-based shared decision-making program. Methods: Consumers with severe mental illness (N=167) were interviewed prior to implementation and 12 and 18 months later to assess changes in active treatment involvement, symptoms, and recovery-related attitudes. Providers also rated consumers on level of treatment involvement. Results: Most consumers used CommonGround at least once (67%), but few used the program regularly. Mixed-effects regression analyses showed improvement in self-reported symptoms and recovery attitudes. Self-reported treatment involvement did not change; however, for a subset of consumers with the same providers over time (N=83), the providers rated consumers as more active in treatment. Conclusions: This study adds to the growing literature on tools to support shared decision making, showing the potential benefits of CommonGround for improving recovery outcomes. More work is needed to better engage consumers in CommonGround and to test the approach with more rigorous methods.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Implementing CommonGround in a Community Mental Health Center: Lessons in a Computerized Decision Support System
    (American Psychological Association, 2016-10-10) Bonfils, Kelsey A.; Dreison, Kimberly C.; Luther, Lauren; Fukui, Sadaaki; Dempsey, Abigail E.; Rapp, Charles A.; Salyers, Michelle P.; Psychology, School of Science
    Objective: Although shared decision making (SDM) is a key element of client-centered care, it has not been widely adopted. Accordingly, interventions have been developed to promote SDM. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation process of one SDM intervention, CommonGround, which utilizes peer specialists and a computerized decision support center to promote SDM. Method: As part of a larger study, CommonGround was implemented in 4 treatment teams in a community mental health center. The implementation process was examined by conducting semistructured interviews with 12 staff members that were integral to the CommonGround implementation. Responses were analyzed using content analysis. Program fidelity and client program use were also examined. Results: Although key informants identified several client and staff benefits to using CommonGround, including improved treatment engagement and availability of peer specialists, most clients did not use CommonGround consistently throughout the implementation. Key informants and fidelity reports indicated a number of program (e.g., technological difficulties, increased staff burden) and contextual barriers (e.g., poor fit with service structure, decision support center location, low staff investment and high turnover) to the successful implementation of CommonGround. Strategies to maximize the implementation by increasing awareness, buy-in, and utilization are also reported. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: This implementation of CommonGround was limited in its success partly as a result of program and contextual barriers. Future implementations may benefit from incorporating the strategies identified to maximize implementation in order to obtain the full program benefits.