Objective To examine provider competence in providing Illness Management and Recovery (IMR), an evidence-based self-management program for people with severe mental illness, and the association between implementation supports and IMR competence. Methods IMR session recordings, provided by 43 providers/provider pairs, were analyzed for IMR competence using the IMR treatment integrity scale. Providers also reported on receipt of commonly available implementation supports (e.g., training, consultation). Results Average IMR competence scores were in the “Needs Improvement” range. Clinicians demonstrated low competence in several IMR elements: significant other involvement, weekly action planning, action plan follow-up, cognitive-behavioral techniques, and behavioral tailoring for medication management. These elements were commonly absent from IMR sessions. Competence in motivational enhancement strategies and cognitive-behavioral techniques differed based on the module topic covered in a session. Generally, receipt of implementation supports was not associated with increased competence; however, motivational interviewing training was associated with increased competence in action planning and review. Conclusions and Implications for Practice IMR, as implemented in the community, may lack adequate competence and commonly available implementation supports do not appear to be adequate. Additional implementation supports that target clinician growth areas are needed.

Objective This study aims to identify consumer-level predictors of level of treatment response to Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) in order to target the appropriate consumers and aid psychiatric rehabilitation settings in developing intervention adaptations. Methods Secondary analyses from a multi-site study of IMR were conducted. Self-report data from consumer participants of the parent study (n = 236) were analyzed for the current study. Consumers completed pre-post surveys assessing illness management, coping, goal-related hope, social support, medication adherence, and working alliance. Correlations and multiple regression analyses were run in order to identify self-report variables that predicted level of treatment response to IMR. Results Analyses revealed that goal-related hope significantly predicted level of improved illness self-management, (F (1, 164) = 10.93, p <.001, R2 = .248, R2 Change = .05). Additionally, we found that higher levels of maladaptive coping at baseline were predictive of higher levels of adaptive coping at follow-up, (F (2, 180) = 5.29, p < .02, R2 = .38, R2 Change = .02). Evidence did not support additional predictors. Conclusions and Implications for Practice Previously, consumer-level predictors of level of treatment response have not been explored for IMR. Although two significant predictors were identified, study findings suggest more work is needed. Future research is needed to identify additional consumer-level factors predictive of IMR treatment response in order to identify who would benefit most from this treatment program.