Skip to content

Efficacy of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) Model

Efficacy of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) Model for Consumers With Disability and Substance Use Disorders

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01048346
Enrollment
223
Registered
2010-01-13
Start date
2004-12-01
Completion date
2009-05-01
Last updated
2022-03-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Substance Use Disorders

Keywords

employment, disabilities

Brief summary

Hypothesis 1. Consumers with disabilities and co-occurring SUD receiving IPS will be more likely to be competitively employed (defined as 1 or more days of work over the past 30 days) at 3, 6 and 12 months following the initiation of vocational treatment goals when compared to a group receiving standard services. Hypothesis 2. Consumers with disabilities and co-occurring SUD receiving IPS when compared to the comparison group will 1.) be more successful in achieving their employment goals as indicated by the ratio of hours worked to desired hours worked; 2.) become competitively employed sooner; 3.) earn higher wages, 4.) have greater job satisfaction, 5.) have greater economic satisfaction; 6.) have greater life satisfaction, 7.) have greater self-esteem, and 8.) have fewer days of using substances during follow-up points.

Detailed description

Hypothesis 1. Consumers with disabilities and co-occurring SUD receiving IPS will be more likely to be competitively employed (defined as 1 or more days of work over the past 30 days) at 3, 6 and 12 months following the initiation of vocational treatment goals when compared to a group receiving standard services. Hypothesis 2. Consumers with disabilities and co-occurring SUD receiving IPS when compared to the comparison group will 1.) be more successful in achieving their employment goals as indicated by the ratio of hours worked to desired hours worked; 2.) become competitively employed sooner; 3.) earn higher wages, 4.) have greater job satisfaction, 5.) have greater economic satisfaction; 6.) have greater life satisfaction, 7.) have greater self-esteem, and 8.) have fewer days of using substances during follow-up points.

Interventions

Psychosocial intervention involving an employment specialist working with participants recruited into the study and assisting with employment.

Sponsors

Ohio State University
CollaboratorOTHER
Wright State University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Inclusion criteria includes consumers who are between the ages of 18-65, able to provide informed consent for participation, and are initiating an employment goal in their treatment plan.

Exclusion criteria

*

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Competitive employmentMay 2005 - May 2009

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
life satisfaction, job satisfaction, self-esteem, substance and alcohol useMay 2005 - May 2009

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026