| Methods |
Allocation: random allocation with "oversampling of experimental group" ‐ not clear what this means.*
Follow up: 9 months.
Lost to follow‐up: 0%.
Objectivity of rating of outcome: raters not independent. |
| Participants |
Inclusion criteria: i. severe mental illness (unspecified); ii. unemployed; iii. client of CMHC.
Diagnosis: schizophrenia, schizophrenia‐like disorders (72%).
N=122.
Age: mean 36 years.
Sex: 36% women.
Race: 20% non‐white.
History: ever married 16%, ever employed 82%, time since last employment ˜9 years, previous admissions U/K.
Setting: CMHC, Philadelphia, USA. |
| Interventions |
1. Two employment specialists: using counselling, social learning techniques, group sessions, rewards for passing up a "ladder" of success (making positive changes, setting goals, making transition to state vocational rehabilitation centre, entering the world of work). No specific prevocational training, but some job finding for a few who did not want to enter the VR system, plus usual CMHT. N=61.
2. Control: usual services of CMHT: including partial hospitalisation, outpatient services, therapy and medication management. No specific vocational services, but could have referral to state VR service. N=61. |
| Outcomes |
In competitive employment.
Not participating in program.
In any form of employment or education.
Unable to use ‐
Self‐esteem: Rosenberg's scale (no comparison with control group).
Social functioning: Social Level of Functioning Scale (no comparison with control group). |
| Notes |
* Method of randomisation unusual ‐ the paper suggests that a high drop‐out rate after randomisation led to replacement of people in the treatment group ‐ but this is not explicit. It is possible that this is not an intention to treat analysis. |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment? |
Unclear risk |
B ‐ Unclear |
