Development of a Supported Education Program for Students with Severe Mental Disorders in India

Abstract

Background: The onset of severe mental disorders (SMDs) is during adolescence or young adulthood, which affects the well-being and the educational aspirations of the students. Models of supported education practiced in the West are not culturally suitable for Indian students or the Indian education system. This study aimed to develop a Supported Education Program (SEP) for students with SMDs to help them with academic reintegration in an Indian context. Methods and Material: To develop the SEP, a realist review was done, followed by an in-depth interview with eight mental health professionals (MHP) and nine lecturers, using a validated interview script. After each interview, interim analysis and modifications were done to improve the rigor of the interview. After all interviews, the SEP was circulated for a second round of iteration for consensual validation by four mental health experts. The outcome of the entire process was the final version of SEP for students with SMDs. Results: The final SEP had two broad themes and 18 subthemes from the qualitative thematic analysis: theme 1 included issues and strategies relevant to the client or caregivers, and theme 2 was pertinent to the education system. Conclusion: The SEP developed and validated for people with SMDs has distinctive components: one for the individual and caregiver and the other for the educational system.

Advisory groups in realist reviews: Systematically mapping current research and recommendations for practice

“…40% ( n = 37) of the realist reviews cited use of an advisory group at some stage (as per the working definition for this study, notably other terminology was often reported) [14–17, 25–61]. 60% ( n = 56) did not mention the use of an advisory group [62–117]. Of those that did not mention an advisory group, seven reviews [62–64] did report participant involvement that did not fulfill the criteria of an advisory group, i.e., participants were used as data sources but did not advise on the review.…”

“…60% ( n = 56) did not mention the use of an advisory group [62–117]. Of those that did not mention an advisory group, seven reviews [62–64] did report participant involvement that did not fulfill the criteria of an advisory group, i.e., participants were used as data sources but did not advise on the review. Advisory group use was more common in RRRs; 71.5% ( n = 10) mentioning the use of an advisory group [14, 43–45, 118–123], while the remaining 28.5% ( n = 4) did not mention an advisory group [124–127].…”

Supported education for students with psychiatric disabilities: A systematic review of effectiveness studies from 2009 to 2021.

“…No progress appears to have been made regarding the strength of the evidence supporting SEd, as the past decade produced only three small randomized controlled trials on SEd. Despite the fact that little effect research has been done, there is great interest in SEd worldwide (see e.g., Annapally et al, 2021; Corrigan et al, 2020; Kinney et al, 2020; Liljeholm et al, 2021; Lövgren et al, 2020) and in the integration of SEd and supported employment (see e.g., Cohen et al, 2020; Humensky et al, 2019; Nuechterlein et al, 2020; Thompson et al, 2021). This warrants further effect research.…”