Evaluating the Impact of Inpatient Mental Health Rehabilitation on Quality of Life and Recovery

Abstract

Previous evaluations of mental health rehabilitation services have mostly examined clinician-rated or objective outcomes. There is also a need to consider subjective, patient-rated outcomes such as quality of life and recovery. Service users in a rehabilitation unit were invited to complete quality of life and recovery measures at admission and discharge. Of 79 eligible service users, 48 (60.8%) completed measures at both admission and discharge. Significant improvements were noted in overall quality of life and recovery, as well as most individual domains of quality of life. Satisfaction with family relationships showed only modest improvement. Satisfaction with sex life showed no significant change. Users of the rehabilitation service experienced improvements in quality of life and recovery. The evaluation’s main limitations were the lack of a control group, the lack of follow-up, and the possibility of differential drop-out. Clinical and research implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Holloway F, Kalidindi S, Killaspy H, Roberts G, editors. Enabling recovery: the principles and practice of rehabilitation psychiatry. London: RCPsych Publications; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Iyer SN, Rothmann TL, Vogler JE, et al. Evaluating outcomes of rehabilitation for severe mental illness. Rehabil Psychol. 2005;50(1):43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bunyan M, Ganeshalingam Y, Morgan E, et al. In-patient rehabilitation: clinical outcomes and cost implications. BJPsych Bull. 2016;40:24–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Petrie RX, Mountain DA. An observational study of the impact of a rehabilitation admission on readmission data. Scott Med J. 2009;54:32–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Grinshpoon A, Abramowitz MZ, Lerner Y, Zilber N. Rehospitalization of first-in-life admitted schizophrenic patients before and after rehabilitation legislation: a comparison of two national cohorts. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2007;42:355–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Tsoutsoulis K, Maxwell A, Padinjareveettil AMP, Zivkovic F, Rogers JM. Impact of inpatient mental health rehabilitation on psychiatric readmissions: a propensity score matched case control study. J Ment Health. 2018; Epub ahead of print.

  7. 7.

    Lavelle E, Ijaz, A, Killaspy, H et al. Mental health rehabilitation and recovery services in Ireland: A multicentre study of current service provision, characteristics of service users and outcomes for those with and without access to these services. 2011; Final Report for the Mental Health Commission of Ireland.

  8. 8.

    Killaspy H, Zis P. Predictors of outcomes for users of mental health rehabilitation services: a 5-year retrospective cohort study in inner London, UK. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2013;48:1005–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Killaspy H, Marston L, Green N, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs for people with complex psychosis; a naturalistic prospective cohort study of mental health rehabilitation service users in England. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16:95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Murugesan G, Amey CG, Deane FP, Jeffrey R, Kelly B, Stain H. Inpatient psychosocial rehabilitation in rural NSW: assessment of clinically significant change for people with severe mental illness. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2007;41:343–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Gonda T, Deane FP, Murugesan GA. Predicting clinically significant change in an inpatient program for people with severe mental illness. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2012;46(7):651–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Joint Commissioning Panel for Mental Health. Guidance for commissioners of rehabilitation services for people with complex mental health needs. London: Joint Commissioning Panel for Mental Health; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Killaspy H, Marston L, Omar RZ, et al. Service quality and clinical outcomes: an example from mental health rehabilitation services in England. Br J Psychiatry. 2013;202:28–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Svavarsdottir SJ, Lindqvist R, Juliusdattir S. Mental health services and quality of life. Int J Psychosoc Rehabilit. 2014;18(2):72–88.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Eack SM, Newhill CE. Psychiatric symptoms and quality of life in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull. 2007;33:1225–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Priebe S, Huxley PJ, Knight S, Evans S. Application and results of the manchester short assessment of quality of life (MANSA). Int J Soc Psychiatry. 1999;45(1):7–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Štrkalj-Ivezić S, Vrdoljak M, Mužinić L, Agius M. The impact of a rehabilitation day centre program for persons suffering from schizophrenia on quality of life, social functioning and self-esteem. Psychiatr Danub. 2013;25(Suppl. 2):194–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Crawford MJ, Robotham D, Thana L, et al. Selecting outcome measures in mental health: the views of service users. J Ment Health. 2011;20(4):336–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Neil ST, Kilbride M, Pitt L, et al. The questionnaire about the process of recovery (QPR): a measurement tool developed in collaboration with service users. Psychosis. 2009;1:145–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Williams J, Leamy M, Pesola F, Bird V, Boutillier C, Slade M. Psychometric evaluation of the questionnaire about the process of recovery (QPR). Br J Psychiatry. 2015;207(6):551–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Bayliss.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The lead author was employed as a clinical psychologist in the unit being evaluated. All other authors were interns in the unit being evaluated. No other conflicts of interest are identified.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bayliss, P., Nic Dhonnacha, K., Allen, D. et al. Evaluating the Impact of Inpatient Mental Health Rehabilitation on Quality of Life and Recovery. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. Ment. Health 6, 67–73 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40737-018-0130-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mental
  • Health rehabilitation
  • Evaluation
  • Quality of life
  • Recovery