[DISENGAGEMENT | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary](^2^)

Objectives: This review examined rates and definitions of disengagement among services for first-episode psychosis (FEP) and identified the most relevant demographic and clinical predictors of disengagement.

disengagement

Download

Methods: A comprehensive search for and review of published studies that reported rates and predictors of disengagement within FEP services were conducted. The databases PubMed (1966-2012) and PsycINFO (1882-2012) were searched. Relevant terms were used to search the Internet and the reference sections of relevant papers for other pertinent studies. Independent searches for recent publications by leading researchers in the field were also conducted.

Results: Ten articles were included in the review. There was a lack of consensus on a clear definition of engagement and disengagement. However, despite differences in definitions and study settings, the evidence reviewed indicates that approximately 30% of individuals with FEP disengage from services. Variables that were consistently found to exert an influence on disengagement across studies were duration of untreated psychosis, symptom severity at baseline, insight, substance abuse and dependence, and involvement of a family member.

Conclusions: Given the importance of continuity of care for FEP, there is a need for a clearly defined and agreed measurement of service engagement and disengagement across FEP services. In particular, those who enter an FEP program without family involvement and support as well as those who maintain persistent substance abuse are at higher risk of disengagement. Early identification of such individuals and the development of approaches to reduce risk of service disengagement are likely to increase the effectiveness of these services.

Measurements: A global social disengagement scale was constructed from the following indicators: presence of a spouse, monthly visual contact with three or more relatives or friends, yearly nonvisual contact with 10 or more relatives or friends, attendance at religious services, group membership, and regular social activities. Cognitive function was assessed with the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire. Response to the questionnaire was scored as high, medium, or low. Cognitive decline was defined as a transition to a lower category.

Now, I know from reading comments on social media about the first episode we did in this series that some people argue that students have always done this. They say that student disengagement is nothing new, and that many look for ways to get away with doing less. But experts who watch trends in teaching say that something is different now.

In the 21st century businesses and organizations are constantly in a struggle to innovate and adapt to changing technology, market, and environmental conditions (Collins, 2020). The need for greater productivity and efficiency builds anxiety and stress for all involved but perhaps more destructively, it can lead to disengagement among employees, staff, and volunteers. Disengagement is a major problem with estimates suggesting nearly over 70% of the workforce are disengaged in certain areas (Rastogi et al., 2018). This issue is complicated by the lack of identification and adequate addressing of the causes and symptoms associated with disengagement at the workplace (Wolff, 2019). This article will define employee disengagement, identify contributing factors that lead to employee disengagement, and provide leadership strategies toward addressing disengagement among employees.

To effectively describe disengagement, it is necessary to define what engagement is in the employee context. Employee engagement can be broadly described as having a positive attitude toward their company/organization and a desire to aid and contribute to its success. In other words, engagement is often related to commitment and loyalty toward one's organization (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Employee engagement is an important factor in organizational performance and success (Pech & Slade, 2006).

Disengagement is often defined by its symptoms, which include slow working tempo, lack of interest in work, easily and prolongingly distracted, and minimal output (Pech & Slade, 2006). Disengaged employees often possess negative attitudes toward their work and organization. These negative attitudes have been shown to have detrimental effects on organizational productivity and success. As mentioned at the beginning of this article, there is a real need for organizational managers and leaders to quickly identify contributing factors that lead to disengagement. Below is a list of four key factors identified in Rastogi et al., 2018:

Given the significant positive impacts of employee engagement on organizational success, it follows that disengagement has equally significant negative impacts. Engagement and disengagement are not switches you can turn on and off. You cannot suddenly make employees engaged or disengaged; however, as managers and leaders, our approach and relationships with our employees can have a major impact on creating an engaging working environment. Dr. David MacLeod, companion member at Chartered Management Institute in London, UK emphasized that employee engagement is a workplace approach that help to create the conditions in which employees can reach their highest potential and capability. In Wolff, 2019, the author discusses four leadership and management strategies to address the psychological needs related to employee engagement.

An immediate consequence of Israel's disengagement from Gaza was Benjamin Netanyahu's August 7 resignation as finance minister, making a Likud Party leadership challenge between him and Ariel Sharon virtually inevitable. What will be the impact of such a challenge on Sharon's policy in the postdisengagement period? And how would a Netanyahu challenge affect the chances of a split within the Likud -- and perhaps a broader realignment of Israeli politics?

Netanyahu resigned during the August 7 cabinet meeting, saying afterward that he believed Gaza disengagement would create a "base for terror," a policy with which he could no longer associate himself. He also opposed the unilateral nature of the withdrawal, saying reciprocity is better for Israel.

Sharon charged Netanyahu with flipflopping from his earlier support. Indeed, Netanyahu voted four times for disengagement: twice in the cabinet, on June 6, 2004, and February 20, 2005, and twice in the Knesset, on October 26, 2004, and February 16, 2005. (He was absent on a Knesset vote held on July 20, 2005.) Moreover, Netanyahu pointedly refused to leave the government despite mounting appeals by critics of disengagement in the eighteen months since Sharon announced his intention to pull out of Gaza.

Critics allege that Netanyahu is disassociating himself from disengagement now in order to challenge Sharon for the Likud leadership later. In the immediate aftermath of his resignation, several polls of the Likud membership found that Netanyahu would trounce Sharon. An August 10 poll by Haaretz found that 47 percent of Likud members support Netanyahu, compared to only 33 percent backing Sharon. This despite an August 12 poll by Yediot Aharonot showing that the Israeli public backs disengagement by a margin of 58 percent to 33 percent and finds Sharon more credible than Netanyahu by a margin of 40 percent to 20 percent. Worrisome for Sharon is the fact that only fourteen of his party's forty parliamentary members consistently vote with him.

The Palestinian Authority's (PA's) performance against terror will probably do more to determine the course of Sharon's policy after disengagement than the specter of a Netanyahu challenge. The more the PA confronts Hamas, the more it will push Sharon to move forward on the Quartet's Roadmap to Middle East peace.

Another issue on which Netanyahu might criticize Sharon is the route of Israel's security barrier. Netanyahu has made the inclusion inside the fence of two major settlement blocs, Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumim, a security priority. In spring 2004, he even floated the idea that he might condition his support for disengagement on a rerouting of the security barrier to include those two sites. As it stands, Ariel (population 17,500) has a local fence, but it is not fully hooked up to the broader barrier. Israel has signaled that it wants to fence in Ma'aleh Adumim (population 30,000), but so far has not done so.

Yet another potential issue of contention between Sharon and Netanyahu could be Sharon's relationship with Washington. Sharon has showcased the Bush administration's support for Gaza disengagement, and Netanyahu will likely pounce if it is clear that U.S. support for at least a decent portion of Israel's $2 billion aid request is not forthcoming. (Netanyahu will also take credit for Israeli economic improvement during his term as finance minister. Israeli per-capita GDP recently surpassed its preintifada level of $17,000, and overall growth was 4.9 percent in the first half of 2005.) Interestingly, President Bush's first extensive interview with an Israeli media outlet, Israel Television, occurred within a few days of Netanyahu's resignation. In the past, U.S. presidents have offered such interviews at key moments -- President Clinton spoke to the Israeli media when he thought Ehud Barak's government was collapsing in the wake of concessions offered at Camp David in 2000.

The biggest question in Israeli politics is whether Gaza disengagement and the Netanyahu resignation portend a broad political realignment. Some argue that the current party map in Israel dates from the time when only the Labor Party favored territorial concessions and Likud largely rejected them. However, Gaza disengagement has demonstrated the heterogeneity of Likud, comprised both of hardliners -- who a priori reject Palestinian statehood -- and hard bargainers who believe demographic trends and other forces require accommodation. There is talk therefore of a possible "big-bang" -- the formation of a centrist, largely secular Israeli party led by Sharon, compromising part of Likud, part of Labor, and the Shinui Party -- or a "little bang," in which Sharon and like-minded politicians would break from Likud without forming a common list with people whose dovishness he would consider an electoral liability. 2ff7e9595c