Effectiveness of supported employment in non-trial routine implementation: systematic review and meta-analysis
While supported employment (SE) programs for people with mental illness have demonstrated their superiority in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, little is known about the effectiveness of non-trial routine programs. The primary objective of this study was to estimate a pooled competitive employment rate of non-trial SE programs by means of a meta-analysis. A secondary objective was to compare this result to competitive employment rates of SE programs in RCTs, prevocational training programs in RCTs and in routine implementation.
A systematic review and a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions were conducted. Quality assessment was provided. Moderator analyses by subgroup comparisons were conducted.
Results from 28 samples were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled competitive employment rate for SE routine programs was 0.43 (95% CI 0.37–0.50). The pooled competitive employment rates for comparison conditions were: SE programs in RCTs: 0.50 (95% CI 0.43–0.56); prevocational programs in RCTs: 0.22 (95% CI 0.16–0.28); prevocational programs in routine programs: 0.17 (95% CI 0.11–0.23). SE routine studies conducted prior to 2008 showed a significantly higher competitive employment rate.
SE routine programs lose only little effectiveness compared to SE programs from RCTs but are much more successful in reintegrating participants into the competitive labor market than prevocational programs. Labor market conditions have to be taken into account when evaluating SE programs.
KeywordsSocial psychiatry Psychiatric rehabilitation Supported employment Routine implementation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 1.Modini M, Tan L, Brinchmann B, Wang MJ, Killackey E, Glozier N, Mykletun A, Harvey SB (2016) Supported employment for people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence. Br J Psychiatry 209(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.115.165092 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Suijkerbuijk YB, Schaafsma FG, van Mechelen JC, Ojajarvi A, Corbiere M, Anema JR (2017) Interventions for obtaining and maintaining employment in adults with severe mental illness, a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD011867. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011867.pub2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Cochrane AL (1972) Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. Nuffield Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 5.Smith PG, Morrow RH, DA R (eds) (2015) Field trials of health interventions: a toolbox, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 16.R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- 18.IntHout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF (2014) The Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian–Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-25 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hunter JP, Saratzis A, Sutton AJ, Boucher RH, Sayers RD, Bown MJ (2014) In meta-analyses of proportion studies, funnel plots were found to be an inaccurate method of assessing publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 67(8):897–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Beimers D, Biegek DE, Guo S, Stevenson L (2010) Employment entry through supported employment: Influential factors for consumers with co-occurring mental and substance disorders. Best Pract Ment Health 6(2):85–102Google Scholar
- 25.Corbiere M, Lecomte T, Reinharz D, Kirsh B, Goering P, Menear M, Berbiche D, Genest K, Goldner EM (2017) Predictors of acquisition of competitive employment for people enrolled in supported employment programs. J Nerv Ment Dis 205(4):275–282. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000612 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Fabian ES (1992) Supported employment and the quality of life: does a job make a difference? Rehabil Counsel Bull 36(2):84–97Google Scholar
- 31.Favre C, Spagnoli D, Pomini V (2014) Dispositf de soutien à l’emploi pour patients psychiatriques: évaluation rétrospective. Swiss Arch Neurol Psychiatry 185:258–264Google Scholar
- 35.Major BS, Hinton MF, Flint A, Chalmers-Brown A, McLoughlin K, Johnson S (2010) Evidence of the effectiveness of a specialist vocational intervention following first episode psychosis: a naturalistic prospective cohort study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 45(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0034-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Nygren U, Markstrom U, Svensson B, Hansson L, Sandlund M (2011) Individual placement and support—a model to get employed for people with mental illness—the first Swedish report of outcomes. Scand J Caring Sci 25(3):591–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2011.00869.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Rinaldi M, Perkins R (2007) Comparing employment outcomes for two vocational services: individual placement and support and non-integrated pre-vocational services in the UK. J Vocat Rehabil 27:21–27Google Scholar
- 49.Metcalfe JD, Drake RE, Bond GR (2018) Economic, labor, and regulatory moderators of the effect of individual placement and support among people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Schizophr Bull 44(1):22–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbx132 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 51.Evans-Lacko S, Knapp M, McCrone P, Thornicroft G, Mojtabai R (2013) The mental health consequences of the recession: economic hardship and employment of people with mental health problems in 27 European countries. PLoS One 8(7):e69792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069792 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar