Meaningful Activities and Recovery (MA&R): the effect of a novel rehabilitation intervention among persons with psychiatric disabilities on activity engagement—study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background Engagement in activities meaningful to the individual may support the process of recovery in those with mental illness. Persons with psychiatric disabilities may reduce their engagement in meaningful activities to various degrees with possible fluctuations over time. We hypothesized that activity engagement can be altered when opportunities and support are offered at an individual and a group peer-based level. Evidence is lacking regarding mental health interventions that enable engagement in meaningful activities, and powered effect studies are warranted. Methods We propose an 8-month combined individual and group peer-based intervention, Meaningful Activities and Recovery (MA&R), and a study protocol for a multicentre two-armed parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT). The trial investigates the effects of MA&R in community mental health centres in Copenhagen and municipality services in Denmark. The trial will comprise 128 participants with psychiatric disabilities who will be randomized to one of two groups: (1) MA&R in addition to standard mental healthcare or (2) standard mental healthcare alone. The primary outcome is self-reported activity engagement, measured by Profiles of Engagement in People with Severe Mental Illness. Secondary outcomes are recovery, functioning and quality of life. Data will be collected at baseline and at follow-up at the end of the intervention. Discussion This study adds new knowledge to a field with limited evidence, i.e. the clinical effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions among people with psychiatric disabilities, directly targeting activity engagement. The pragmatic design, regarding in- and exclusion criteria and settings, may allow assessment of the intervention’s effect under real-life conditions. The randomization, adequate power and fidelity monitoring allow testing of the intervention’s efficacy. The multicentre study design increases the potential for implementation in various mental health settings if the findings are positive. As the nature of the intervention does not permit blinding of the participants or staff, it may increase the risk of expectancy and performance bias. This must be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03963245. Registered on 29 May 2019

Meaningful activities during COVID-19 lockdown and association with mental health in Belgian adults

“…So far none of these studies on mental health during COVID-19 took the role or potential influence of one's daily meaningful activities on adult mental health into account, although the lockdown has had a major impact on daily activities [30] and previous research has shown that daily activities can have a huge impact on one's mental health [31][32][33][34][35][36].…”

Supported Employment, Participation at Work, and Peer Support: A Qualitative, Participatory Case Study Report of the Geesthacht Model

“…The value of work, activities and/ or employment for the recovery of people with mental health crises and psychosocial disabilities has been demonstrated in various contributions and reviews (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29). Work is a means for social integration and participation (23)(24)(25), it may have empowering effects (22,26), and may contribute to developing a sense in one's existence (26,27).…”

Key Learnings from Running an Extension Study to a Real-World Effectiveness Trial: The Extended Salford Lung Study

“…A second challenge we faced with site recruitment potentially stemmed from perceptions of the GP workload associated with the Ext-SLS. During the original SLS, GPs received support from the research nurse network which was crucial in allowing them to participate while minimising the impact on their usual work [ 17 ]. However, by the time invitations for the Ext-SLS were sent, the SLS support team had been largely de-mobilised and this may have impacted whether GPs decided to participate.…”