1575

Disability & Rehabilitation

2012

34

18

1575

1584

© 2012 Informa UK, Ltd.

10.3109/09638288.2011.650315

0963-8288

1464-5165

Disability & Rehabilitation, 2012; 34(18): 1575–1584© 2012 Informa UK, Ltd.ISSN 0963-8288 print/ISSN 1464-5165 onlineDOI: 10.3109/09638288.2011.650315

01 November 2010

04 October 2011

December 2011

Purpose: The Independence through Community Access and Navigation (I-CAN) intervention was developed to increase community participation in adults with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) through identification of interest-based recreation activities and supported participation. Method: Ten individuals consented to participate in a 10-week pilot intervention. Eight individuals participated in the intervention, during which time they worked with a recreational therapist to identify interest-based recreation activities, develop participation goals and coparticipate with the recreational therapist. At the end of the intervention, seven participants were involved in a semistructured interview to understand their perceptions of the intervention, including its outcomes and effectiveness. Therapists’ notes and transcripts from the semistructured interviews were used to understand clients’ perception of the intervention. Results: Thematic analyses of seven exit interviews suggested the primary perceived outcomes of the intervention included: increased community involvement; development of planning skills; and the development of coping skills. These were facilitated by the therapeutic relationship between the client and therapist. Conclusions: This project provides preliminary support for the I-CAN as a participant-centered method for individuals with SSD to develop skills in the community. Implications for practice and future research are presented.

Keywords: Community participation, recovery, recreational therapy, schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Introduction

Schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) are a diagnostic group associated with severe and persistent mental illness affecting approximately 1% of the general population [1,2]. People with

SSD experience chronic isolation [3–5], elevated morbidity [6], imprisonment [7], poverty [7–9] and homelessness [7] rates when compared to the general population. Defining character-istics of SSD include positive symptoms such as hallucinations, intrusive thoughts and delusions; negative symptoms such as lacking the ability to experience pleasure, lacking the motiva-tion to initiate behavior and lacking the ability to empathize; and cognitive dysfunctions including disorganized thought, inability to plan, and memory deficits [10,11]. Additionally, individuals with SSD have functional impairments that affect such things as planning and attending to multiple tasks; pro-ducing and receiving verbal and nonverbal communication; forming and maintaining relationships; self-care; and accessing community services among others [4,12–15].

Mental illnesses such as SSD are still highly stigmatized within the general population and both the real experiences of stigma and perceived stigma often prevent community participation [16,17]. In summarizing the negative effects of stigma on public health, Link and Phelan [18] suggested that

REHABILITATION IN PRACTICE

Community involvement, planning and coping skills: pilot outcomes of a recreational-therapy intervention for adults with schizophrenia

Gretchen Snethen1, Bryan P. McCormick2 & Marieke Van Puymbroeck2

1Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA and 2Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Correspondence: Gretchen Snethen, PhD, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Temple University, 1700 N. Broad, Philadelphia, PA, 19122 USA. Tel: 215-204-2748. E-mail: gsnethen@temple.edu

• The Independence through Community Access and Navigation intervention uses community-based rec-reation to promote community participation through the development of competence, autonomy and relatedness.

• The promotion of independent community-based recreation participation through supported participa-tion may increase planning abilities, coping skills and community participation.

• An interactive leadership style, where control is bal-anced between therapist and client, may help facilitate perceived competence and autonomy.

Implications for Rehabilitation

(Accepted December 2011)

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

1576 G. Snethen et al.

Disability & Rehabilitation

internalized stigma can cause individuals with SSD to “act less confidently and more defensively with others,” (p. 528) ultimately leading to avoidance and isolation.

In order to address functional impairments, mental-health professionals have moved toward a recovery model in which recovery is viewed as a process and the client is an active par-ticipant in his or her treatment [19–22]. Interventions follow-ing this framework often target activities of daily living [17] and employment [17]; however, involvement in recreation and leisure activities is a less-studied treatment area that has the opportunity to address both social and functional impair-ments, while increasing life satisfaction [17,23,24].

Leisure and mental health treatment

Recreation and leisure activities as treatment areas for SSD are understudied areas that may have positive benefits with this population [23]. Recently, Iwasaki, Coyle and Shank [24] have proposed meaningful leisure participation as a facilita-tor in holistic recovery in individuals with severe mental ill-ness, citing benefits in (1) health (i.e. physical and mental), (2) identity formation, (3) coping, (4) social connectedness, (5) human development and (6) positive emotions. Similarly, researchers purport the benefits of leisure participation for individuals with SSD in improving community functioning, gaining and practicing social skills, increasing physical skills, accomplishing goals and developing competencies [25,26]. Furthermore, individuals with SSD who have high motiva-tion to participate in leisure activities are also further in the recovery process [26]. Another study determined that leisure participation had positive impacts on self-efficacy and per-ceived control [27].

Recreation and leisure activities have inherent social quali-ties that may provide opportunities for the development of social networks [28,29]. Sorgaardand et  al. [30] found high social integration and satisfaction with social attachments in adults with SSD was positively correlated with satisfaction with leisure activities. Individuals with larger nonkin social networks are more likely to have better long-term outcomes than individuals with social networks comprising primarily family members [31]. This suggests that friendship networks may provide individuals with resources familial networks do not. Furthermore, Evret et  al. [32] found social integration to be positively correlated with improved overall function-ing. Conversely, those who participate in fewer social leisure activities also experience greater social isolation [4]. This suggests individuals with more diverse social networks have higher levels of integration. Social integration of individuals with SSD is also associated with earlier treatment of symp-toms. In addition, among adults with SSD, social interaction is more likely to occur outside the home [33], which provides support for community-based interventions.

Intervention framework and implementation

In 2009, the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team recommended that in order for interventions to have a lasting

impact, the implementation of interventions targeting func-tional improvements should occur in the community [34]. The Independence through Community Access and Navigation (I-CAN) intervention [35] is theoretically grounded in self-determination theory (SDT) which posits the meeting of basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and related-ness is fundamental for motivation and well-being [36,37]. Autonomy involves people’s abilities to choose and endorse the activities in which they are involved [38]. Mancini [20] reported that autonomy in treatment and participation in meaningful activities is core to the recovery process.To pro-mote autonomy, clients were actively involved in decision making during each stage of the intervention, suggesting an interactive style between therapist and client, which has been shown to be effective within this population [27]. Competence refers to an individual’s mastery within given situations and is predictive of community participation [2]. The coparticipa-tion stage allowed for participants to experience the activity in the actual environment with desired support in order to develop competence for independent participation. Finally, relatedness involves an individual’s need to be connected to others and includes one’s need to be an equal contributor to relationships. That is, individuals need to receive the benefits of social interaction, but also believe their contribution to the relationship is valuable. Individuals with SSD are often isolated [4,5], and Sorgaard et al. [30] suggest leisure activities provide individuals with access to others. More specifically, by target-ing participation in community-based recreational activities clients were given access to individuals with common interest, with whom they could form potential relationships. Thus, by addressing the basic psychological needs of competence, relat-edness and autonomy, the opportunity to promote sustained improvements in overall functioning exists [38–40].

The I-CAN intervention is a recreational-therapy (RT) intervention modeled after the individualized placement and support (IPS) model [41]. Central tenets derived from the IPS model were concepts of client preference, rapid placement, providing supports and skill training in vivo and time-unlim-ited support [42]. The IPS model was developed in supported employment interventions [42], but has also been used in supported education interventions [43]. For this intervention, the IPS model is used to support community-based recreation participation, matching clients with interest-based activities to promote autonomy and providing onsite training through coparticipation.

The conceptualization of functioning within the I-CAN intervention is derived from the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) [44]. The ICF provides a model of the interrela-tionship of functioning and also provides the background for the targeted areas of rehabilitation and increased participation [45,46]. The ICF is not population-specific, but rather classi-fies areas of functioning that are applicable to all individuals. It is beneficial for rehabilitation professionals to use the ICF as it provides a common language for practitioners to use to communicate functional impairments and improvements to other professionals [47]. For the purposes of this study, the

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Outcomes from the I-CAN intervention 1577

© 2012 Informa UK, Ltd.

researchers focused on the activities and participation section of the ICF, specifically, the functional assessment used for the I-CAN intervention was developed using activity codes from the major life areas (d8) and community, social and civic life (d9) chapters of the activities and participation section. Furthermore, the activities assessed were specific to the com-munity in which the intervention took place.

Method

Study design and interventionThe intervention was facilitated by two master’s-level trained recreational therapists. The lead author, who was involved with the initial development of the intervention, was one of the implementing recreational therapists and participated in training the other recreational therapist. Like the IPS, the I-CAN intervention was designed to be time unlimited; however, due to feasibility constraints, these outcomes of pilot intervention took place over a 9-week period with the entire data-collection period occurring over 10 weeks. The recre-ational therapists met with each client for approximately 30 hours (excluding data-collection times) over the course of the 9-week pilot intervention.

The purpose of this study was to pilot test and evaluate the perceived value and effectiveness of the I-CAN intervention in adults with SSD receiving assertive community-treatment (ACT) services. Information about the development of the intervention and the protocol are described in detail elsewhere [35,48]. This project focused on the following key questions: (1) What are the perceived outcomes of the intervention? (2) Are there facilitating or limiting variables that contribute to the outcomes?

ParticipantsAll participants in this study received ACT services from a local community mental health center (CMHC). ACT is a best-practice model that serves individuals with severe men-tal illness who experience significant functional impairment. ACT services include activities of daily living, vocational assistance, counseling, medication support, supported hous-ing, financial assistance, social skills and problem-solving skills [49]. While one of the goals of ACT is normalized com-munity functioning, services rarely target essential elements of community integration (i.e. social interaction and partici-pation in meaningful activities) and have demonstrated lim-ited impact on social functioning [50,51]. Participants were recruited via ACT-team case managers based on inclusion criteria of (1) diagnosis of SSD, (2) 18 years of age or older and (3) no communicable conditions that prevented community

participation. Clients who expressed interest in the study and met inclusion requirements met with the lead author who completed the consent and enrollment process. The univer-sity institutional review board and the independent CMHC institutional review approved all study methods.

Data collectionData were collected in May–July 2010 in a small city in the Midwestern United States. The project employed a rolling enrollment with each participant engaging in the project for 10 weeks. Both qualitative and quantitative data were used to address the research questions of the pilot intervention. Individuals participated in a structured interview to confirm diagnosis [52], an initial semistructured interview, nine modi-fied day-reconstruction methods (DRMs) [53] interviews and a final exit interview in combination with the I-CAN inter-vention. The initial semistructured interview and the DRM interviews provided data to understand the daily community participation that occurred. The DRM interviews occurred three times each during week 1, 4 and 10 of the study and required participants to identify types of activity and moti-vation for participation. Table I presents the topical areas addressed by the exit interview. The initial and exit semistruc-tured interviews lasted 30–45 minutes per interview.

Finally, the recreational therapists’ clinical notes were included as data to provide information about the progress of each individual client. These progress notes included information from the initial assessment and throughout the intervention, and identified participants’ initial goals, prog-ress and continuing goals. Summaries were provided to the client’s primary case manager upon completion of the pilot intervention.

Analyses

DRM data were coded by activity location (i.e. home, commu-nity, CMHC). These data were summed across participants to capture an idea of the number of activities participants iden-tified during the week prior to the intervention, the fourth week of the pilot intervention and the final week of the pilot intervention. Additionally, data regarding the presence of oth-ers was summed across locations, in order to gain an under-standing of where people with SSD are more likely to be in contact with friends.

Using an open coding system to analyze data, the first author conducted a thematic analysis of the clients’ perceived value and outcomes of the intervention and factors influenc-ing outcomes. All analyses utilized the modified version of the constant comparison method presented by Boeije [54],

Table I. Exit interview topical outline.Exit interviewIntervention description Intervention perceptionCould you describe your involvement in the intervention?

What are your thoughts about the intervention? About the assessment?

What are the things that you did? Would you do this again? Why/Why not?Why were those things chosen? What do you think the purpose of this intervention was? Is this important to you? Should this type of program be available to others receiving mental-health services? Why/Why not?

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

1578 G. Snethen et al.

Disability & Rehabilitation

in which initial codes are identified and then compiled into broader categories and eventually themes. Data were analyzed within the individual and then across individuals. The initial interview, conducted during the first week of DRM interviews, and the initial goals set by participants were analyzed to gain an understanding of the participants’ day-to-day life prior to the intervention. The exit interviews were initially coded to identify preliminary themes to ensure data analysis reflected participant perceptions, and then compared to the clinician notes and DRM interviews that directly related to interven-tion procedures to clarify and further expand developing themes. The multi-interview format allowed the researchers to look for perceived changes within the individual and across the study group. The majority of the data for this article stems from the exit interviews and the clinical notes in which par-ticipants had the opportunity to evaluate the intervention.

Member checks were conducted after the completion of the final interview to ensure description of daily participation and intended goals of the intervention were accurate; partici-pants did not identify any issues with the presentation of this section of the data. Additionally, a peer reviewer checked the coding scheme for credibility.

Results

ParticipantsA total of 10 ACT consumers with SSD enrolled in this proj-ect; however, two dropped out before the intervention began, one citing health reasons and the other refusing requests for additional contacts. The remaining five males and three females ranged from 24–57 years of age. Table II presents a

brief description of the participants*. Of the eight participants, seven had complete data; however, one participant completed only 6 weeks of the intervention owing to incarceration.

Daily participationThroughout the data-collection period, participants identi-fied involvement in few activity episodes during the DRM-collection periods. The average number of activities based on all end of day DRM reports were M = 3.8 (standard deviation (sd) = 0.95), M = 4.7 (sd = 0.57) and M = 4.3 (sd = 1.1) for DRM collection during weeks 1, 4 and 10, respectively. Table III presents the location of activity participation for the individuals in this study. In relation to community-based activities, week 4, which was during the coparticipation phase of the interven-tion, had the highest number of activities that took place within

Table II. Participant description.Participanta Sex Ethnicity Age CharacteristicsJerome M African American 30 Jerome had a high frequency experience of intrusive thoughts and delusions of grandeur that often

made community participation difficult. He was eager to learn new things and had a high desire to meet new people. Jerome had no observable negative symptoms. He admitted to being stigmatized within the community. Jerome had a history of substance abuse.

Kendra F White 43 Kendra was not currently experiencing positive symptoms; however, she exhibited severe impairments in initiating behavior and planning, and spent most days in bed or watching television. She also centered her life around men and often felt used for sex. Kendra had a history of alcohol abuse.

Mary F White 46 Mary experienced positive symptoms of paranoia. She exhibited communication impairments such as: difficulty processing information and low verbal-communication skills. She self-identified having depression and a learning disability. Mary exhibited negative symptoms of flattened affect, anhedonia and amotivation. She also experienced stigma within the community. Mary had a history of substance abuse.

Arnie M White 54 Arnie frequently experienced intrusive thoughts that negatively affected his confidence in performing activities. He exhibited flattened affect, amotivation, difficulty processing information and experienced severe anxiety regarding new situations.

Tracy F White 27 Tracy frequently experienced positive symptoms (hearing voices) and exhibited flattened affect, impairments in initiating behavior and planning and anxiety about scheduling activities.

Sean M White 25 Sean frequently experienced positive symptoms (hearing voices) and disorganized thought. He often had difficulty processing information and verbalizing his thoughts. Sean also had an active substance-abuse disorder.

Art M White 51 Art experienced delusions he presented as reality. Art had severe negative symptoms and cognitive dysfunction, resulting in severe impairments in communication, including written and verbal. Art also had severe impairments in planning and initiating behavior, spending most of his days in bed.

Ben M White 43 Ben experienced positive symptoms of paranoia, hearing voices and delusions. He had difficulty processing information and verbalizing thought. Ben also had severe impairments in planning and initiating behavior, and spent most of his time in his apartment. Ben also had an active substance-abuse disorder.

aPseudonyms are used in place of the participants’ real names.

Table III. Numbera of identified activities by participant.

WeekCommunity Home CMHC

1 4b 10 1 4 10 1 4 10Arnie 3 4 4 8 10 6 1 0 2Jerome 3 7 6 9 8 8 2 2 4Tracy 4 4 4 11 9 7 0 0 0Sean 2 5 – 5 2 – – – –Art 1 4 2 9 11 11 1 2 1Kendra 0 3 0 6 7 11 0 1 0Mary 2 3 3 7 9 6 1 1 1Benc 2 4 1 10 9 4 0 0 0Total 17 34 20 65 65 53 5 6 8CMHC, community mental health center.aNumber does not reflect duration.bCoparticipation occurred here.cBen only completed 2 days of week 10 DRM.

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Outcomes from the I-CAN intervention 1579

© 2012 Informa UK, Ltd.

the community. It is important to note, these activities neither reflect the duration of different activities nor the specific type of activity, only the number and location of activities.

During half of the activities listed in the DRM, partici-pants identified being alone. Community-based activities had a higher occurrence of participation with friends than any other location and home-based activities had a higher occur-rence of solitary participation. Like community participation, activity involvement with friends occurred most frequently during week 4. Table IV presents a summary of the presence of others by location.

Perceived outcomesParticipants who completed the exit interview identified three primary outcomes from the intervention: (1) community involvement, (2) planning and (3) coping. These themes were initially coded from the exit interviews. Table V represents the number of times each theme was coded within each partici-pant during the exit interview. This table is representative of both the perceived-outcomes themes and perceived facilita-tors discussed later. It is important to note, these themes were also further developed through the information from the clinical notes and the DRM interviews.

All seven individuals who participated in the exit interview identified positive outcomes from their participation. In an overarching statement, Jerome identified the following:

I think [the intervention] was very meaningful. Because you’ve shown me that there’s things out there I can do that, if I just try certain things, I never know, I’ll probably enjoy them. You showed me there’s things to do in the community other than just things I’ve been doing…Just find that having somebody to talk to, you know? For some things, I got off my chest, you know, that was on my chest for a long time and there was nothing I felt like I was able to do about it, you know? I got it off my chest and it made me feel better, you know? I had fun these past weeks, you know?+

Perceived outcomes are presented in the following catego-ries: community involvement, planning and coping skills.

Community involvementBased on the participant exit interviews and the therapists’ notes, all participants increased their level of community par-ticipation. At the start of the intervention, Jerome and Tracy were the most integrated into their community, accessing it both for goods and services as well as for interest-based activi-ties. However, even these individuals believed they increased community-participation levels. When asked what if he per-ceived benefits from the intervention, Jerome initially stated

having activities to do and expanded upon this with the fol-lowing statement:

Activities means that you’re not locked up, you know? When the door is out there and you can’t get out, you can’t do nothing. That’s a reminder that I can get out and do stuff, not locked behind the door.

Prior to the intervention, Jerome’s definition of com-munity was freedom from an inpatient facility and jail; his description of activities suggests an increased perception in freedom and greater connection to the community. Tracy, who was the only participant with her own form of trans-portation, began to access her community more regularly for activities other than shopping. By the end of the inter-vention, Tracy was going to the pool at least once per week, had made plans to go to a free knitting class at the library with her sister and was leading her neighbors in simple yoga techniques learned in a local yoga class in the courtyard of their apartment.

The only initial goal Arnie was able to identify was riding the bus, which, by the end of the intervention, he was able to do independently. During his exit interview, Arnie also identified interest in learning to participate in other commu-nity-based activities (i.e. learning to use the computer at the apartment commons and walking).

Finally, even Ben and Kendra, who despite their limited contact with the recreational therapist because of sleeping through or otherwise missing appointments, believed they increased their participation in the community. Kendra, who could only identify sleeping as the activity she partici-pated in prior to the intervention, identified she went to the library and “out to get tea” as a direct result of the interven-tion. More importantly, she identified both an increased desire to participate in the community and the importance

Table V. Code count by participant.

Participant

Perceived outcomes Perceived facilitatorCommunity involvement Planning Coping

Therapist/client interaction

Arnie 5 3 4 9Jerome 8 1 6 1Tracy 4 2 4 3Art 6 0 3 4Kendra 4 5 1 1Mary 7 1 2 2Ben 2 2 1 4Total 36 14 21 24

Table IV. Numbera activity instances by location and presence of others.

Week

Alone Friends Providers1 4 10 Total 1 4 10 Total 1 4 10 Total

Home 43 47 33 123 6 – – 6 5 6 4 15Community 5 4 5 14 5 15 7 27 1 8 3 12CMHC – – – – 2 1 4 7 3 2 5 10Total 48 52 38 137 13 16 11 40 9 16 12 37CMHC, community mental-health center.aDoes not indicate the number of individuals present.

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

1580 G. Snethen et al.

Disability & Rehabilitation

of community participation. Stating, “just talking about my behavior and what I do and what I don’t do. Making me realize the things I need to do more of. Regardless of whether I sleep one night or not, I need to get out and do things.” This desire to get out and do things was echoed by Ben in that he believed it was an avenue to meet others, “Oh, it’s [socializing] so important. It’ll get my mind back in order, and I’ll find things to do, different friends, and even-tually get back into some kind of work hopefully, or study. I don’t want to just be lazy.”

PlanningFrom the assessment that occurred at the beginning of the intervention all participants exhibited functional deficits in the ability to plan and organize their days. Ben and Sean both identified a lack of daily structure and an inability to independently structure daily routines. Ben stated, “I’ve been taking it as it comes, but I’ve been wanting to get a set routine,” while Sean stated, “[I’d like] more structured activities.”

By the end of the intervention, Jerome and Tracy were able to set weekly participation goals. Jerome identified exercising 5 days/week as one of his weekly goals. While Tracy still had difficulty following through with daily plans, she made prog-ress in setting weekly goals.

I just do the best I can do but I still don’t know. I was hesitant about making plans because I don’t know [how] I’m going to feel. And then like with the yoga and doing it on my own, I could[n’t] do it on the days that I was laying in bed on the same day I said I was going to do it. But I was able to do it on a day that I felt half way decent.

At the intervention completion, Ben still identified the need to develop his abilities to make and follow through with plans. Ben felt the most structure he experienced was in relation to the intervention. While Arnie’s days were structured around activities of daily living, he could not use the bus independently prior to the start of the intervention. When asked about understanding the bus schedule, Arnie stated, “At the very beginning, there was anxiety big time… It’s over with now.” Through participation in the interven-tion, Arnie was able to overcome his anxiety about the bus schedule and learn to use the appropriate bus for different appointments, “just by you writing down things and stuff… I need to write down things myself, too. It all works hand in hand.”

CopingDuring the initial interview and the intervention assess-ment, participants identified stress and anxiety as a barrier to participation, and through participation in the interven-tion, reported developing coping skills to manage stress and anxiety. Jerome, who often had intrusive thoughts that made him feel depressed,was able to identify an activity to decrease stress and feel better about himself, “I learned I can go walk when I’m stressed out. Hop on the bus and go out to the trail and go down the trail.” Similarly, at the end of

the intervention, Mary was able to list activities she could do both at home and in the community when she was feeling stressed or overwhelmed. This was important for her, as she had visited the emergency room twice in a 2-week period for psychiatric services, without consideration of other options. By the end of the intervention, she had identified the impor-tance of finding activities she could do that helped her feel better when feeling depressed.

When discussing the activities she and the recreational therapist chose to participate in, Tracy identified the per-ceived participation benefits, “And they’re helpful. Like yoga is good for your body. And the pool is good to be in the sun for Vitamin D, or whatever…” Similarly, when asked why com-munity participation was important to her, Kendra stated, “It’s just healthy for you physically and mentally.”

Mediating factorsBased on the participant exit interviews, it was found that two factors related to the intervention or the study design had an impact on the intervention outcomes. The first, therapist/client interaction was a facilitator of outcomes; the second, the limiting factors related to the pilot study design.

Therapist/client interactionA contributing factor to the intervention outcomes was the therapeutic relationship that developed and the coparticipa-tion that occurred between the recreational therapist and the clients. All participants identified this theme (see Table V). This relationship appears to be qualitatively different from the relationships clients described with their other mental-health professionals. Jerome referred to the recreational therapist as his “therapist sister” identifying that she helped him with his day-to-day well-being. During the assess-ment, Art identified that he did not enjoy talking to people because of his speech impairment. When asked if he still felt that way, Art clarified that he still does not feel comfortable talking with others, but that he felt comfortable talking to the recreational therapists involved in the study. Ben felt his recreational therapist motivated him more so than his other mental-health professional.

Somehow [the recreational therapist] perk[s] me up and make[s] me want to do more things for myself... I think [she was] concerned about my mental health, and my physical health, and my future. How so? I can tell by the way [she] treat[s] me. I think [the recre-ational therapist] has shown me more concern than most types all the years I’ve been here.

In talking about the therapist/client interaction, five of the participants discussed the frequency with which the recre-ational therapist encouraged autonomous behavior. The client identified the activities focused on within the intervention during the initial assessment; however, these five participants independently discussed having the therapist encourage them to make autonomous decisions.

The presence of the recreational therapist during the copar-ticipation portion of the intervention was also valued and

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Outcomes from the I-CAN intervention 1581

© 2012 Informa UK, Ltd.

contributed to the intervention outcomes. Arnie summarized his experience with learning the bus route in the following vignette:

Then, as days go on and weeks go on, we get on the bus and stuff, that means that I was more comfortable with you there with me, knowing that where to go and where not to. You’ve been a big help to me on the bus route. Now that you’re leaving, I stood there on my own on my bus route on my own, what you wrote down, what I wrote down, too…

The involvement of the recreational therapist was also beneficial during new tasks that required interaction with community members. Sean experienced social anxiety when interacting with community-service providers, and admitted to running away after asking for a job application. However, during the coparticipation, Sean was able to ask the art museum curator questions as well as ask for a scholarship application from a local community gym.

Coparticipation was also seen as beneficial for developing confidence in the actual setting. The following excerpt from Tracy’s exit interview not only identified the importance of coparticipation for herself, but she also generalized it to the broader purpose of the intervention.

When you’re by yourself. I know that I was. When I was by–– I was by myself a lot for awhile. Going to places, whether it be the hospital or to the store, whatever. And I was scared at first. You know you just have all this. You’re just scared. You know some-thing. You’re suffering on the inside. And you got to try to make everybody else think you’re okay… But I think it helps having somebody there so that if you like kind of go there. Just like if you got a kid and you took them somewhere, and then they were able to learn because they got adults or whatever to go on their own.…And then they were able to learn that that’s the same with mental illness. If you go a couple of times with someone, and, then you’ll feel better doing it on your own.

This also speaks to the importance of developing skills in the community as opposed to strictly in a controlled envi-ronment. Identifying the skill in one setting did not always transfer to successful participation. Amotivation often made it difficult for individuals to complete tasks on their own. For example, Ben, who had the Young Men’s Christian Association application prior to the intervention, admit-ted he would not have turned the application in without the support of his therapist. The presence of the therapist gave what Arnie termed “moral support” so the participant could develop the skills to eventually complete the activities independently.

Finally, individuals in transition, particularly transition that was unresolved (i.e. eviction, incarceration) had difficulty focusing on the goals they developed with their recreational therapist. During intervention sessions, Ben was fixated on looking for an apartment, and needed an intermittent goals-clarification session to explain the role of the recreational therapist. Even though Sean left jail prior to the end of his intervention timeline, he was receiving threats from someone in the community, and was therefore, frequently not available for participation.

Discussion and implications

The results of this study provide provisional support for the use of the I-CAN intervention in a community mental-health setting with adults with SSD, particularly with regard to com-munity involvement, planning and coping skills. Additionally, the importance of the interaction between the recreational therapist and participant is discussed in relation to facilitat-ing outcomes. While the results of this pilot study are limited to the individuals who participated, the consistent outcomes with participants are promising. Additionally, the identified satisfaction and desire to continue participation is impor-tant when considering Mancini’s [20] recommendations for autonomy in treatment and involvement in meaningful activi-ties as essential to implementing interventions consistent with the mental-health recovery model. While one of the overarch-ing aims of this intervention was to increase social interaction in adults with SSD, the time frame of the intervention did not allow for maintained social interaction. However, social inter-action during the coparticipation section and community participation increased during the intervention. Yilmaz et al. [33] found that individuals with SSD who had access to recre-ational activities within the community also identified having larger friend networks, suggesting that participation in the intervention has the potential to increase social interaction.

It is important to note, the average number of activity episodes identified during the present DRM was consider-ably less than those in typical DRM studies, which suggest an average of 15 activity episodes per day [53]. This speaks to the limited variety in activity involvement of the participants in this study. It is also important to note, the greatest amount of community participation occurred during the middle of the intervention, specifically when the recreational therapist coparticipated with the client. Similarly, this is when partici-pants identified more frequent interaction with others.

In relation to the SDT constructs, the I-CAN was suc-cessful in increasing autonomy and competence. While autonomy may appear to be an easier outcome, it was not something that participants independently integrated into the intervention. The RT worked with the client to ini-tially identify interest-based activities; beyond that, the RT encouraged independent decisions and reinforced par-ticipation based on self-interest, rather than participation to please the therapist. Given the functional impairments and cognitive deficits within this population [12,14,55,56], developing competence took repetition of the activity. The coparticipation phase provided the opportunity for the therapist to provide immediate feedback and encour-age participation. Participants who achieved some level of independent participation received reinforcement from the therapist through continued communication and were able to problem-solve concerns for future participation. As discussed earlier, the length of the I-CAN pilot interven-tion was not long enough to increase sustained relatedness in participants. Because literature [30] suggests increased community participation, and participation in common-in-terest–based activities will increase relatedness and partici-pants in this pilot study increased community participation,

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

1582 G. Snethen et al.

Disability & Rehabilitation

the researchers suggest that continued participation in the intervention would likely increase relatedness as well.

Implications for practiceThe results of this pilot-intervention study point to the possibilities the I-CAN intervention can play in SSD recov-ery. Integrating interest-based activities and the theoreti-cal components of SDT (i.e. competence, relatedness and autonomy) into mental-health interventions can help indi-viduals with SSD function more successfully within their communities.

An interactive leadership style promotes increased lev-els of perceived control [27], which is consistent with the findings in this study. The interaction between therapist and client occurred at all stages of the intervention (i.e. goal development, activity participation, goal evaluation), and was cited as a meaningful component of the intervention by all participants. This further provides support for the integration of mental-health professionals into the facili-tation of community-based recreation activities with this population. In order to increase competence, it is important that the client perceives the coparticipation phase as close to independent participation as possible, which Austin [57] also provides support for by describing recreational thera-pists as a therapist friend. Similarly, psychiatric literature had suggested clients with a good alliance with their thera-pists are more likely to adhere to treatment recommenda-tions [58]. Motivational interviewing has been shown to be effective with people with SSD and substance-abuse issues [59] and it appears that the elements of the approach can also be effectively applied in enabling community par-ticipation. This was evidenced by the use of motivational interviewing during the assessment portion of the I-CAN, which helped the recreational therapist understand indi-viduals’ motivations for participation and facilitated more natural interactions during coparticipation. Furthermore, the coparticipation was an integral part of the intervention, and should be utilized as long as it takes for the individual to develop both the actual and perceived competence to participate independently. During coparticipation, it was imperative that the therapist provided consistent, positive reinforcement. For future implementation, this can help the participant accurately evaluate his or her behavior and, eventually, recognize mastery experiences.

Given the high rates of unemployment that exist in this population [7,8], providing interventions that address the development of skills needed to access community in nonwork-oriented settings is particularly relevant to recov-ery. At the end of the pilot intervention, participants in this study would not be considered to be active community participants; however, they demonstrated increased par-ticipation indicating this intervention can start to increase community participation and would likely, with time, increase community participation even more. Focusing on interest-based activities and developing the skills and com-petence for individuals to participate independently has the potential to create lasting change and increase social

relationships with individuals who have similar interests. Furthermore, participants identified a desire to increase community participation, which is particularly relevant, given the pervasiveness of amotivation and its impact on functioning [60,61].

The outcome related to planning was particularly interest-ing. The inability to plan and initiate behavior are functional impairments often related to negative symptoms and cogni-tive impairments [55,62]. Addressing such deficits through an individualized intervention of this type has the possibility of developing skills that have clear impact across functional areas and can complement other interventions. While not specifi-cally targeted, the identification of coping skills is important for this population, as stress and anxiety can trigger psychotic episodes [63,64].

Implementing this intervention as time unlimited would likely address some of the limiting factors that were identi-fied. The IPS model identifies unlimited support as one of the elemental factors [42]. While this was not feasible for this pilot intervention, the results presented here provide initial sup-port for the implementation the I-CAN as a time-unlimited intervention. Furthermore, implementation should focus on participation in the community, as opposed to skills training in a clinical environment [65]. Providing ongoing support in community participation will likely vary in intensity as indi-viduals become more confident in their abilities to participate independently.

Implications for researchThis pilot intervention was an initial step in understanding the perceived outcomes of the I-CAN intervention. Understanding the outcomes of the I-CAN intervention from the partici-pants’ perspectives provides initial groundwork for identify-ing more objective outcome measures to use in future studies. While the findings suggest lengthening the intervention will make increased social interactions a more realized outcome, researchers should address how participation in community-based activities is related to social interaction and whether or not individuals with SSD increase social interaction through increased community participation. Intervention research with a larger sample and experimental controls is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the I-CAN intervention on community functioning in adults with SSD.

Limitations

This study was exploratory in nature, and therefore the out-comes of the intervention should be viewed as limited to (1) the perception of the participants in this study and (2) potential areas for future research to address. Given the small sample size, statistical analyses were limited to descriptive statistics and should be viewed as complementary infor-mation to the participants’ perception of the intervention. Related to diagnosis, it was confirmed that participants in this study had a SSD; however, no information about the specific diagnosis, levels of symptoms or medication history and adherence were available. Participants were recipients

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Outcomes from the I-CAN intervention 1583

© 2012 Informa UK, Ltd.

of the same level of services, which indicates a similar level of functioning, but future research should consider the identification of specific diagnoses as well as objective mea-sures of symptomology.

Summary

Community mental-health professionals continue to focus on recovery, rather than only symptom reduction [19–22]. While RT services are often found in inpatient psychiatric facilities, they are less available in CMHCs; however, these services would complement the current services delivered by CMHC. This study provides initial support for the I-CAN interven-tion in increasing community participation. Mental-health professionals should consider interest-based interventions that target community participation by occurring primarily within the community. Individuals with SSD can benefit by incorporating interests into treatment in order to develop personally meaningful interventions that provide the oppor-tunity to create more lasting change and facilitate the process of recovery.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Rachel Smith for her assis-tance with the facilitation of the Independence through Community Access and Navigation intervention.

Declaration of Interest: The authors report no conflict of interest.

References 1. Ruggeri M, Leese M, Thornicroft G, Bisoffi G, Tansella M. Definition

and prevalence of severe and persistent mental illness. Br J Psychiatry 2000;177:149–155.

2. Bowie CR, Leung WW, Reichenberg A, McClure MM, Patterson TL, Heaton RK, Harvey PD. Predicting schizophrenia patients’ real-world behavior with specific neuropsychological and functional capacity measures. Biol Psychiatry 2008;63:505–511.

3. Drake RJ, Haley CJ, Akhtar S, Lewis SW. Causes and consequences of duration of untreated psychosis in schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 2000;177:511–515.

4. Graham C, Arthur A, Howard R. The social functioning of older adults with schizophrenia. Aging Ment Health 2002;6:149–152.

5. Nilsson LL, Lögdberg B. Dead and forgotten–postmortem time before discovery as indicator of social isolation and inadequate mental healthcare in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2008;102:337–339.

6. Everett A, Mahler J, Biblin J, Ganguli R, Mauer B. Improving the health of mental health consumers: effective policies and practices. Int J Ment Health 2008;37:8–48.

7. Perese EF. Stigma, poverty, and vicitmization: roadblocks to recov-ery for individuals with severe mental illness. J Am Psych Nurses 2007;13:285–295.

8. El-Mallakh P. Poverty and self-care in individuals with diabetes mel-litus. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2007;21:236–237.

9. Morris A, Bloom JR, Kang S. Organizational and individual factors affecting consumer outcomes of care in mental health services. Adm Policy Ment Health 2007;34:243–253.

10. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnositic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. text rev. Washington, DC: Author; 2000.

11. Mueser KT, McGurk SR. Schizophrenia. Lancet 2004;363:2063–2072.12. Cohen AS, Forbes CB, Mann MC, Blanchard JJ. Specific cognitive

deficits and differential domains of social functioning impairment in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2006;81:227–238.

13. Harvey PD, Helldin L, Bowie CR, Heaton RK, Olsson AK, Hjärthag F, Norlander T, Patterson TL. Performance-based measurement of func-tional disability in schizophrenia: a cross-national study in the United States and Sweden. Am J Psychiatry 2009;166:821–827.

14. Medalia A, Thysen J. Insight into neurocognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2008;34:1221–1230.

15. Tenorio-Martínez R, del Carmen Lara-Muñoz M, Medina-Mora ME. Measurement of problems in activities and participation in patients with anxiety, depression and schizophrenia using the ICF checklist. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2009;44:377–384.

16. González-Torres MA, Oraa R, Arístegui M, Fernández-Rivas A, Guimon J. Stigma and discrimination towards people with schizo-phrenia and their family members. A qualitative study with focus groups. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2007;42:14–23.

17. Corrigan PW. Towards an integrated, structural model of psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2003;26:346–358.

18. Link BG, Phelan JC. Stigma and its public health implications. Lancet 2006;367:528–529.

19. Andresen R, Oades L, Caputi P. The experience of recovery from schizophrenia: towards an empirically validated stage model. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2003;37:586–594.

20. Mancini MA. The role of self-efficacy in recovery from serious psychi-atric disabilities: a qualitative study with fifteen psychiatric survivors. Qual Soc Work 2007;6:49–74.

21. Mancini MA, Hardiman ER, Lawson HA. Making sense of it all: con-sumer providers’ theories about factors facilitating and impeding recov-ery from psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2005;29:48–55.

22. Oades L, Deane F, Crowe T, Lambert WG, Kavanagh D, Lloyd C. Collaborative recovery: an integrative model for working with individ-uals who experience chronic and recurring mental illness. Australas Psychiatry 2005;13:279–284.

23. Rudnick A. Psychiatric leisure rehabilitation: conceptualization and illustration. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2005;29:63–65.

24. Iwasaki Y, Coyle CP, Shank JW. Leisure as a context for active living, recovery, health and life quality for persons with mental illness in a global context. Health Promot Int 2010;25:483–494.

25. Lloyd C, King R, Lampe J, McDougall S. The leisure satisfaction of peo-ple with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2001;25:107–113.

26. Lloyd C, King R, McCarthy M. The association between leisure moti-vation and recovery: a pilot study. Aust Occu Ther J 2007;54:33–41.

27. Pegg S, Patterson I. The impact of a therapeutic recreation program on community-based consumers of a regional mental health service. J Park Rec Admin 2002;20:65–89.

28. Coleman D, Iso-Ahola SE. Leisure and health: the role of social sup-port and self-determination. J Leisure Res 1993;25:111–128.

29. Yanos PT, Moos RH. Determinants of functioning and well-being among individuals with schizophrenia: an integrated model. Clin Psychol Rev 2007;27:58–77.

30. Sörgaard KW, Hansson L, Heikkilä J, Vinding HR, Bjarnason O, Bengtsson-Tops A, Merinder L, et al. Predictors of social relations in persons with schizophrenia living in the community: a Nordic multi-centre study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2001;36:13–19.

31. Erickson DH, Beiser M, Iacono WG. Social support predicts 5-year outcome in first-episode schizophrenia. J Abnorm Psychol 1998;107:681–685.

32. Evert H, Harvey C, Trauer T, Herrman H. The relationship between social networks and occupational and self-care functioning in people with psychosis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2003;38:180–188.

33. Yilmaz M, Josephsson S, Danermark B, Ivarsson AB. Participation by doing: social interaction in everyday activities among persons with schizophrenia. Scand J Occup Ther 2008;15:162–172.

34. Kreyenbuhl J, Buchanan RW, Dickerson FB, Dixon LB. Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT). The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): updated treatment recommenda-tions 2009. Schizophr Bull 2010;36:94–103.

35. Snethen G, McCormick BP, Van Puymbroeck M. Independence through Community Access and Navigation (I-CAN) in adults with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: theoretical and practical founda-tions (Part I). Am J Rec Ther 2011;10:25–34.

36. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. 1st ed. New York: Plenum Press; 1985.

37. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol 2000;55:68–78.

38. Deci EL, Vansteenkiste M. Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: understanding human development in positive psychol-ogy. Recerche di Psichologia 2004;27:17–34.

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

1584 G. Snethen et al.

Disability & Rehabilitation

39. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Can Psychol 2008;49:14–23.

40. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inquiry 2000;11:227–268.

41. Becker DR, Drake RE. A working life for people with severe mental illness. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.

42. Bond GR. Principles of the individual placement and support model: empirical support. J Psychol Rehabil 1998;22:11–24.

43. Soydan AS. Supported education: a portrait of a psychiatric rehabilita-tion intervention. Am J of Psychol Rehabil 2004;7:227–248.

44. WHO. International classification of functioning, disability and health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.

45. Rimmer JH. Use of the ICF in identifying factors that impact partici-pation in physical activity/rehabilitation among people with disabili-ties. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:1087–1095.

46. Stucki G, Cieza A, Ewert T, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Ustün TB. Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:281–282.

47. Van Puymbroeck M, Porter HR, McCormick BP, Singleton J. The role of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) in therapeutic recreation practice, research, and educa-tion in professional issues in therapeutic recreation: on competence and outcomes. Stumbo NJ, editor. Urbana, IL: Sagamore Publising; 2009. pp 43–57.

48. Snethen G, McCormick BP, Smith RL, Van Puymbroeck M. Independence through Community Access and Navigation (I-CAN) in adults with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: treatment planning and implementation (Part II). Am J Rec Ther 2011;10:35–46.

49. Phillips SD, Burns BJ, Edgar ER, Mueser KT, Linkins KW, Rosenheck RA, Drake RE, McDonel Herr EC. Moving assertive community treat-ment into standard practice. Psychiatr Serv 2001;52:771–779.

50. Anders SL. Improving community-based care for the treatment of schizophrenia: lessons from native Africa. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2003;27:51–58.

51. Bond GR, Drake RE, Mueser KT, Latimer E. Assertive community treatment for people with severe mental illness - critical ingredients and impact on patients. Dis Manag Health Outcomes 2001;9:141–159.

52. Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, Hergueta T. Baker R, Dunbar, G. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): the development and valida-tion of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10 . J Clin Psych 1998; 59(suppl 20):22–33.

53. Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade DA, Schwarz N, Stone AA. A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day recon-struction method. Science 2004;306:1776–1780.

54. Boeije H. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant 2002;36:391–409.

55. Green MF. What are the functional consequences of neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia? Am J Psychiatry 1996;153:321–330.

56. Wykes T, Castle DJ. Cognitive dysfunction in schizophrenia. In: Castle DJ et al., editors. Pharmacological and psychosocial treatments in schizophrenia. London, UK: Informa UK Ltd; 2009. pp 47–60.

57. Austin DR. Therapeutic recreation: processes and techniques. 6th ed. Urbana, IL: Sagamore; 2009.

58. Frank AF, Gunderson JG. The role of the therapeutic alliance in the treatment of schizophrenia. Relationship to course and outcome. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1990;47:228–236.

59. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change. 2nd ed.New York: Guilford Press; 2002.

60. Addington J, Addington D. Positive and negative symptoms of schizo-phrenia. Their course and relationship over time. Schizophr Res 1991;5:51–59.

61. Lysaker PH, Davis LW. Social function in schizophrenia and schizo-affective disorder: associations with personality, symptoms and neu-rocognition. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004;2:15.

62. Kirkpatrick B, Fenton WS, Carpenter WT Jr, Marder SR. The NIMH-MATRICS consensus statement on negative symptoms. Schizophr Bull 2006;32:214–219.

63. Todman M. Boredom and psychotic disorders: cognitive and motiva-tional issues. Psychiatry 2003;66:146–167.

64. Bracke P, Bruynooghe K, Verhaeghe M. Boredom during day activity programs in rehabilitation centers. Sociol Persp 2006;49:191–215.

65. Lehman AF, Kreyenbuhl J, Buchanan RW, Dickerson FB, Dixon LB, Goldberg R, Green-Paden LD, et  al. The Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT): updated treatment recommenda-tions 2003. Schizophr Bull 2004;30:193–217.

Dis

abil

Reh

abil

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rmah

ealth

care

.com

by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Q

ueen

slan

d on

09/

20/1

3Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.