Back
on
Giustina Ryan reports
the market
findings of
NAMH pilot survey on problems encountered by ex-patients going back to work. Attitudes ot employers seem to be encouraging but a question mark hangs over the effectiveness of the agencies concerned with re-employment. on
initial findings of a pilot survey on the problems facing patients leaving mental hospitals in their
search for work suggest that their return to the labour force is not so much of a problem as might be expected. On the other hand, the indications are that many ex-patients do not find the
statutory agencies?the Disablement Resettlement Officer and the Department of Employment and
Productivity?anything like as helpful as they might be. The small-scale pilot survey (200 questionnaires) was carried out by the NAMH as a guide for conducting a thorough investigation. We received 57 replies (28.5% of the sample)?a reasonable response rate considering that it was a postal survey and that certain biases and difficulties of distribution were inevitable in such a 'trial' survey. Of the respondents 21 were men and 35 were women?one reply did not specify sex. The pro-
portion of
men
to women
corresponds quite closely
with the national figures for patients leaving mental illness hospitals. However, the proportion of non-first admissions to first admissions is not similar (1st admissions: men 10, women 12; nonfirst admissions: men 11, women 21). Our sample seemed to include an unusually high number of women who had been in hospital before. In a larger survey this discrepancy could be avoided by suitable weighting. Having defined retirement age as 60 for women and 65 for men, 16 of the men and 14 of the women were intending to return to work or find a new job. Eleven of the men and ten of the women had been successful. In almost all cases the employers knew that the respondent had been in a mental illness hospital. This does not seem to have prejudiced them where the applicant had a good work record (defined as holding only up to two jobs over the last five years) and where the stay in hospital had been short or a first admission. Eight of the men had returned to their previous place of work whereas only three out of the 10 women had done so. This may well be because women are often in jobs with a high level of
an
e.g. unskilled office or domestic work. bias in favour of skilled men finding a job. There was also one man working below the standard that might be expected considering his intellectual ability. It may well be that in other cases jobs have been found which are not commensurate with an ex-patient's original ability or educational qualifications. This could be a result of difficulty in finding suitable work in a particular area or perhaps because the illness has lowered the man's level of proficiency or rate of
mobility, There
was a
progress. In answer to a question about agencies that had been helpful in finding work for them the respondents often referred to a variety of sources of guidance. These ratings represent one of the most interesting results of the pilot survey and warrant listing in full. Helpful: hospital 6, Disablement Resettlement Officer, 4, Department of Employment and Productivity 9, newspaper advertisements 11, friends and relatives 6. Others were: a social worker, a letter to the hospital secretary, an employment agency, direct contact with employer and newsagents window adverts. The Disablement Resettlement Officer was pronounced positively unhelpful by 5 respondents and the Department of Employment and Productivity by 6. Several written comments indicate that the statutory agencies, whose specific business it is to help ex-patients with employment problems, did not give the kind of support needed. The questionnaire for the survey was distributed via 20 mental illness hospitals throughout England and Wales to eliminate, as far as possible, the bias that could be introduced by specific employment situations peculiar to one particular area. A consultant at each hospital was written to and asked to pass a questionnaire on to the first 10 patients discharged in January, 1969. Each eXpatient also received a covering letter and 3 stamped addressed envelope. Problems were encountered in carrying out the survey which obviously must have had an effect on the results and the type of response. For tbis reason the pilot survey is seen chiefly as a guide
for a larger future tentative although
and the conclusions are less real for that. The problem included one hospital misunderstanding the intention and trying to select patients to whom the questionnaire should go; one where patients were discharged by more than one consultant so several permissions had to be sought; and one which did not send out the forms until well after the closing date for replies. A lack of information about the total sample, i.e. those who received but did not return questionnaires as well as those who did complete and post the form, was a snag for comparative analysis. It would have been valuable to know the total ratio of men to women and the proportion contacted who had been first admissions and so on. The final problem is that a postal survey has an in-built bias in that it will be answered more
project
no
readily by people who are capable and literate. Although quite a number of replies came from respondents who were still disturbed or barely literate, a high proportion of the men and women who replied had found work, which may indicate that it is the more able and well-adjusted who replied to the questionnaire. This bias could only by avoided by carrying out a survey by personal interviews. One point, not intentionally included in the body of the questionnaire but which became apparent when reading the general comments of some respondents, is quite a few were still in an obviously disturbed state which must be detrimental to their employment prospects. Out of the 57, 12 mentioned that they were still not well and it was clear from other responses that many more were
functioning by
no means
normally.
on
Giustina Ryan reports
the market
findings of
NAMH pilot survey on problems encountered by ex-patients going back to work. Attitudes ot employers seem to be encouraging but a question mark hangs over the effectiveness of the agencies concerned with re-employment. on
initial findings of a pilot survey on the problems facing patients leaving mental hospitals in their
search for work suggest that their return to the labour force is not so much of a problem as might be expected. On the other hand, the indications are that many ex-patients do not find the
statutory agencies?the Disablement Resettlement Officer and the Department of Employment and
Productivity?anything like as helpful as they might be. The small-scale pilot survey (200 questionnaires) was carried out by the NAMH as a guide for conducting a thorough investigation. We received 57 replies (28.5% of the sample)?a reasonable response rate considering that it was a postal survey and that certain biases and difficulties of distribution were inevitable in such a 'trial' survey. Of the respondents 21 were men and 35 were women?one reply did not specify sex. The pro-
portion of
men
to women
corresponds quite closely
with the national figures for patients leaving mental illness hospitals. However, the proportion of non-first admissions to first admissions is not similar (1st admissions: men 10, women 12; nonfirst admissions: men 11, women 21). Our sample seemed to include an unusually high number of women who had been in hospital before. In a larger survey this discrepancy could be avoided by suitable weighting. Having defined retirement age as 60 for women and 65 for men, 16 of the men and 14 of the women were intending to return to work or find a new job. Eleven of the men and ten of the women had been successful. In almost all cases the employers knew that the respondent had been in a mental illness hospital. This does not seem to have prejudiced them where the applicant had a good work record (defined as holding only up to two jobs over the last five years) and where the stay in hospital had been short or a first admission. Eight of the men had returned to their previous place of work whereas only three out of the 10 women had done so. This may well be because women are often in jobs with a high level of
an
e.g. unskilled office or domestic work. bias in favour of skilled men finding a job. There was also one man working below the standard that might be expected considering his intellectual ability. It may well be that in other cases jobs have been found which are not commensurate with an ex-patient's original ability or educational qualifications. This could be a result of difficulty in finding suitable work in a particular area or perhaps because the illness has lowered the man's level of proficiency or rate of
mobility, There
was a
progress. In answer to a question about agencies that had been helpful in finding work for them the respondents often referred to a variety of sources of guidance. These ratings represent one of the most interesting results of the pilot survey and warrant listing in full. Helpful: hospital 6, Disablement Resettlement Officer, 4, Department of Employment and Productivity 9, newspaper advertisements 11, friends and relatives 6. Others were: a social worker, a letter to the hospital secretary, an employment agency, direct contact with employer and newsagents window adverts. The Disablement Resettlement Officer was pronounced positively unhelpful by 5 respondents and the Department of Employment and Productivity by 6. Several written comments indicate that the statutory agencies, whose specific business it is to help ex-patients with employment problems, did not give the kind of support needed. The questionnaire for the survey was distributed via 20 mental illness hospitals throughout England and Wales to eliminate, as far as possible, the bias that could be introduced by specific employment situations peculiar to one particular area. A consultant at each hospital was written to and asked to pass a questionnaire on to the first 10 patients discharged in January, 1969. Each eXpatient also received a covering letter and 3 stamped addressed envelope. Problems were encountered in carrying out the survey which obviously must have had an effect on the results and the type of response. For tbis reason the pilot survey is seen chiefly as a guide
for a larger future tentative although
and the conclusions are less real for that. The problem included one hospital misunderstanding the intention and trying to select patients to whom the questionnaire should go; one where patients were discharged by more than one consultant so several permissions had to be sought; and one which did not send out the forms until well after the closing date for replies. A lack of information about the total sample, i.e. those who received but did not return questionnaires as well as those who did complete and post the form, was a snag for comparative analysis. It would have been valuable to know the total ratio of men to women and the proportion contacted who had been first admissions and so on. The final problem is that a postal survey has an in-built bias in that it will be answered more
project
no
readily by people who are capable and literate. Although quite a number of replies came from respondents who were still disturbed or barely literate, a high proportion of the men and women who replied had found work, which may indicate that it is the more able and well-adjusted who replied to the questionnaire. This bias could only by avoided by carrying out a survey by personal interviews. One point, not intentionally included in the body of the questionnaire but which became apparent when reading the general comments of some respondents, is quite a few were still in an obviously disturbed state which must be detrimental to their employment prospects. Out of the 57, 12 mentioned that they were still not well and it was clear from other responses that many more were
functioning by
no means
normally.
